Talk:Mummy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Former good article Mummy was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Split[edit]

I propose that the section "In popular culture" should be split to a new article called "mummy (undead)". It is the only section that talks about fictional, undead mummies where the whole rest of the article talks about real, quite very dead mummies. Additionally, it would allow for greater expansion on fictional mummies and remove the quite out-of-place category Category:Corporeal undead from this article. JIP | Talk 16:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you make a good point about a split to distinguish between real mummification and the fictional representation of mummies. I think there are a lot more points that could be included in an article about fictional mummies and how they relate to the popular culture of the eras in which they gain popularity. Could make an interesting page, if there is enough verifiable data. I would suggest an article title more along the lines of mummy (fiction) since it seems more academic. Saint Soren (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I dont think that is a good idea. The article on actual mummies should also have a section on how they have been represented. Written in summary style and with a "main article" link to an article about the fictional kind of mummies. It is not as if there isn't a relation between the two. The former inspired the latter.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
If the page for the undead version of is created, it should also be reserved for the mummies that have appeared in reanimated form like the ones seen in TV shows and movies. They already got a page made for the skeletons. Any objections? --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Major overhaul needed[edit]

After spending some time trying to edit this article, it is obvious that it needs some major overhauling. Looking at the talk page makes it even more obvious. There are suggestions made years ago that have yet to be addressed. This is a very important subject that I believe needs a much better page. I am willing to take up this work, but I would love to have some collaboration and guidance on what needs to be done. Specificity of what needs to be done to each section would be great. Please let me know if I'm overstepping any boundaries as a contributor, I just want to make this article the best it can be! Saint Soren (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The entire section on the Egyptian mummification process is a huge mess. I think the only way to consolidate it is to rewrite it, which I am now in the process of doing. This section is linked to by several other articles on Ancient Egypt and it definitely needs to be the best it can be. Saint Soren (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I have added a list of done/to-do activities related to the current overhaul on my userpage. Saint Soren (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Considering the major elements of the overhaul complete as of today -- Saint Soren (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mummy/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) 21:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Checklist[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Lead

Better to link animal mummy on first reference, rather than writing "(See: Animal mummy)". Ditto with "(See the section Etymology and meaning.)" Best to leave it out, or you could link it to "use of the word."

"... ancient cultures in areas of South America and Asia which have very dry climates": this is a preference issue, but "that" is more precise than "which," and signals that you're not referring to the whole of South America and Asia.

"Deliberate mummy": is that the usual term? You elsewhere call them "anthropogenic mummies."

Continued below.


1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. The images seem fine, except for File:Tuts Tomb Opened.JPG, which was published in 1923 and therefore can't be PD in the US under the pre-1923 criterion. If you want to be strictly correct you might have to upload it to WP and claim fair use; although as it's on the Commons maybe others have checked and it's okay. Also, I doubt you can claim legitimate fair use for File:Ghost1.jpg; there isn't really any critical commentary in the article and the image adds nothing to the page. I'm not a stickler for those things but someone else might object in future. It's also not a very good image and arguably spoils the article a little.

A preference issue: I would move File:Jeremy Bentham by Henry William Pickersgill detail.jpg to the right because he's looking away from the text at the moment.

6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. I've reviewed down to the North America section. I see Saint Soren has edited only twice since 29 November, so I'll put this on hold until s/he's back. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Saint Soren still hasn't edited since 29 November except for two edits on 7 December to his talk page, so I'm reluctantly closing the review as failed because of the lack of response. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Hi Saint Soren, I've just started reviewing this. It's a fascinating read. I've actually been meaning to read this all the way through for some time, since reading about mummies for Female genital mutilation (mummies were studied to see whether it had been done to them), so doing this review gives me a good chance to look through it carefully. I've left a few points above, and I'll continue below as things occur to me. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

  • remove period after "zoologist Francis Trevelyan Buckland."
  • 20th century, small c
  • "for use in pseudoscientific novelties such as mummia": not clear what this means
  • "the creation elaborate tombs": missing an "of."
  • "A text known as The Ritual of Embalming does describe some of the practical logistics of embalming, however, there are only two known copies ..." Change to "but there are only two ..." or if you want to keep "however," it needs a semi-colon before it, or a full stop/period.
  • Same with "Mummies have been discovered in more humid Asian climates, however these are subject to rapid decay after being removed from the grave." Except that in the latter case, I probably wouldn't use either however or but. Better: "Mummies have been discovered in more humid Asian climates; these are subject to rapid decay after being removed from the grave."
  • And with "Later isotopic research on the other mummies returned similar dates, however, many of these individuals were found ..." But instead of however.
  • Next sentence: latter periods? Is that "later"? Also, I'd remove "being."
  • Suggestion: "Written in Book 2 of the Histories is one of the most detailed descriptions of the Egyptian mummification process, including the mention of using natron in order to dehydrate corpses for preservation." Change to: "Book 2 of the Histories contains one of the most detailed descriptions of the Egyptian mummification process, including how natron was used to dehydrate corpses for preservation."
  • Suggestion: not part of the GA criteria, but 1958-1959 ought to have an en dash rather than a hyphen, i.e. 1958–1959. Ditto with 5,000–8,000 years.
  • animal bone tools --> animal-bone tools, or better still "tools made of animal bone."
  • ostrich egg shell beads --> ostrich eggshell beads
  • first mummy ever discovered --> first mummy discovered; the "ever" doesn't add meaning.
  • "The exact reason why her body was so completely preserved has yet to be determined" --> "The reason her body was so well-preserved has yet to be determined."
  • "It was during this time that researchers determined the mine suffered a major collapse" --> had suffered. Suggest simply: "Researchers determined that the mine had suffered a major collapse, which had probably caused the death of the miners."
  • In the Europe section: "The Capuchin monks that inhabited the area ..." This is very vague. Even though you give more detail later, could it be expanded a little here too?
  • "One of the oldest, and most infamous, mummies (nicknamed Ötzi) was discovered on this continent": it would make sense to say where.
  • 21st century, 14th century, 18th century: small c
  • "Embalming was carried out by specialized groups, organized according to gender ..." Does this mean that women embalmed women, men embalmed men?
  • "similar to those of the Ancient Egyptians; involving evisceration ..." comma, not semi-colon
  • "involving evisceration, preservation, and stuffing of the evacuated bodily cavities, then wrapping of the body in animal skins." Better without the "of": "involving evisceration, preservation, stuffing the evacuated body [body, rather than bodily] cavities, then wrapping the body in animal skins." Or you could use a colon and no "involving": "The techniques for embalming were similar to those of the Ancient Egyptians: evisceration, preservation, stuffing the evacuated body cavities, then wrapping the body in animal skins."
  • "The mummies range in age and social status at time of death": I'd remove "at time of death." Their social status didn't change after death, and the next sentence explains that they're mostly from the 18th century, so "age" doesn't need the "at time of death" qualifier.
  • 1674-1783: better with en dash, 1674–1783
  • 140 bodies, then thirty-eight bodies: you can do either, but it's better to keep it consistent. A common rule is text from one to nine, and thereafter numerals.
  • "In 1875, the Borum Eshøj grave mound was uncovered, which had been built around three coffins, which belonged to a middle aged man and woman as well as a man in his early twenties. Through examination, the woman was discovered to be around 50–60 years old." Some suggested fixes: "The Borum Eshøj grave mound was uncovered in 1875. This had been built around three coffins containing a middle-aged man, a man in his early twenties, and a woman found to be 50–60 years old. She had been buried with several artifacts ... "
  • "wore a sheath of which contained" --> "wore a sheath that contained" or "wore a sheath containing"
  • horse hair hairnet --> horse-hair hairnet, or horsehair hairnet (the latter is better)
  • made by sprang technique --> made by the sprang technique, or according to the sprang technique?
  • "She was wearing a blouse and a necklace as well as two golden earrings, showing she was of higher class." Needs a comma before "as well," but better still: "She was wearing a blouse, necklace and two golden earrings, suggesting she was of a higher class."
  • "The Egtved Girl, dated to 1370 BCE, was found also inside a sealed coffin inside of a tumulus, in 1921" --> The Egtved Girl, discovered in 1921 in a sealed coffin and dated to 1370 BCE, was also found inside a tumulus."
  • "She was wearing a bodice and a skirt, including a belt and bronze bracelets." A skirt doesn't include a belt and bracelets. Better simply to say: "She was wearing a bodice, skirt, belt and bronze bracelets." And the next sentence: "The cremated remains of a child lay at her feet, and by her head there was a box containing some bronze pins, a hairnet and an awl."
  • "Italian mummies display the same diversity ...": the same as?
  • I wouldn't write "(See: Catacombe dei Cappuccini)." You could consider a "further information" link at the top of the section – i.e. {{see|Catacombe dei Cappuccini}} – although now I see it's already linked in that section under a different title.
  • 15th and 16th century, small c
  • "leaving the bodies to be protected and preserved" --> leaving the bodies protected and preserved

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification needed on section Egyptian mummies[edit]

In the seventh paragraph (starting "Through various methods ... ") it is stated "The only organ left behind was the heart ... " yet in the subsection "Most Perfect" method it only refers to the removal of the brain and the abdomen, either by liquefying or direct removal. There is no mention of going beyond the abdomen into the thorax, so it would appear that the lungs remained intact, as well. If the liquefying agent dissolved the diaphragm and lungs as well, would not the heart be at least badly damaged, if not liquefied, as well? If the direct removal technique is used, it would appear a much larger incision would be needed, and a more detailed knowledge of internal anatomy. This reflects on the larger question I'm looking for which is: just how detailed was the ancient Egyptian knowledge of anatomy? Based on what I see so far, it would appear to be far less than what I expected.

Yet again, the article Canopic jar states that there were four jars per body, and that they included lungs. This seems to make more sense, with a jar for each lung, one for the digestive organs, and the fourth for remaining organs, liver, spleen, etc. This implies the more extensive knowledge of anatomy that I associate with the Egyptians, but is incompatible with the preservation techniques described. Also, it would seem that the liquefying technique would be incompatible with the use of canopic jars ... there would be nothing left to dry out and preserve. Presumably this technique would belong to the "Avoiding expense" subsection.

Could an Egyptologist review this and rewrite this section accordingly?

73.219.226.54 (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Mummy Article Evaluation[edit]

Looking at this article, we can see that there has been an abundance of work done to cover most, if not all, of the aspects that surrounds the subject of mummies. With all the information, this article accomplishes its purpose on Wikipedia, to combine and present knowledge by using several channels. This Mummy article covers the meaning behind the term to the history and popular culture. The article does a great job in covering mummies in different parts of the world as well as informing the audience about discoveries made without being biased. The diction presented in the article maintains the neutrality that Wikipedia greatly endorses. The article simply lays out the facts and is able to display their scholarly sources and provide links to these sources which allows the article to be verified and enforce reliability.

To go on, with the plentiful information presented in the article, I would suggest to create an enhanced layout in order to better navigate the topics of the article. Implementing a better layout would in my opinion create a better consistency for the article and prevent confusion and frustration for Wikipedia readers. Also by creating a better layout for the article, it would allow all kinds of readers to follow along easier.

Another area of improvement would be to expand on the modern use or ideas of mummies. This would help readers better analyze how times have changed and altered through the years. Britogis (TALK) 11:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britogissel (talkcontribs)

@Britogissel:Yes, this article does have a pretty extensive coverage, though the section on Egyptian mummies does contradict itself, which is certainly a major problem. It can also use better presentation, and it probably is a bit too big, as it sits, and should be broken into sub-articles. I'm looking into this article, and will be editing / re-structuring it soon, as part of a larger project. Do you have any specific ideas in mind?? Thanks! Hi-storian (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mummy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly how important is it that "mummies are more dead than zombies"?[edit]

In the In popular culture section, it mentions that "mummies are more dead than zombies". How important is this (not to mention how can something possibly be "more dead" than another dead thing). Should it be removed? NightlyG (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it. That sentence seems like a bit of a prank to me. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)