Talk:Mummy/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello, this is being reviewed as part of the Good Article sweeps. A quick glance over the article shows a few concerns that will need to be addressed if the article is to retain its GA status.

The lead section is far too short. It should summarize the main points of the whole article, and an article of this length should have a lead of three to four paragraphs.
Much of the article is unreferenced, which is a major concern.
Large portions of the article were removed last month with no explanation (see these three diffs. Is there a reason for this? I think it hurts the comprehensiveness of the article.

this has been fixed. laurap414 (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no fair use rationale for the Three Stooges picture (I believe it should be removed, as it doesn't even show a mummy, so it seems disingenuous to claim that it contributes to the reader's understanding of mummies in fiction).

Fixed Saint Soren (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Mummies in fiction" section should be updated to include a discussion of the recent "The Mummy" movies.
In the "Natural mummies" section, the "In" could be removed from the subsection names (eg. "North America" rather than "In North America").
The "References" section should be consistently formatted, and more information is needed in some cases. I strongly recommend visiting Wikipedia:Citing sources for the {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates.

These would be a good start toward retaining GA status. If these can be dealt with in a timely fashion, I will go through the article in more detail to make sure that it meets the criteria. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no response, I am delisting the article. I encourage future editors to use these suggestions to help guide future editing, and I hope to see this article back as a GA some day. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was absolutely saddened to see that this article has had so many issues for so long with little resolution. I will do everything I can to help improve this article! It is a very important section that needs a definite overhaul! Saint Soren (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]