Talk:Tutankhamun/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Balon Greyjoy (talk · contribs) 12:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking forward to doing this review. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I have completed my initial review. This page has quite a bit of work ahead for it to reach GA status. Please ping me if you have any questions; I'll check back periodically to see updates. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

References

• Make sure all references have a standardized format. For web pages, make sure an access date is listed.
• Make sure the sources all comply with WP:RS. In particular, I'm looking at the Daily Mail references

There's only one Daily Mail reference, and I'm not sure what's wrong with it.

Per WP:RS, it's not considered a reliable source.

• There are several citation needed tags to address
• There's a broken reference on the page (currently number 42)

Paragraph 5, line 3. The 1972 (and onwards) world tour should include United Kingdom - in fact UK was the first country in which the tour was exhibited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.227.160.87 (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Prose

Lead

• Take out "sometimes the New Empire Period" as that's an unnecessary detail for a lead section

Done! I removed the sentence.

• I changed "the popular symbol" to "a popular symbol"
• Remove the sentence about his artifacts touring the world; the artifacts themselves are not touring, and this is not a pertinent detail for a lead section

Done! I removed the sentence.

• I changed "results of DNA tests" to "genetic testing"
• Take out "the heretical" from "His father was the heretical king Akhenaten, believed..." as that is not a descriptor but a label . The genealogy is correct, but the label is not. To justify leaving the term, you could change it to "the alleged heretic king Akhenaten, believed..." Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.185.22.30 (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Life

• It's confusing that the lead section states that some believe Tut was the son of Akhenaten, while the "Life" section treats it as fact

Done! I removed the confusion.

• The reign section should follow a more logical flow. State what Tut did during his reign, and then add towards the end of the section about Tut's advisors.

Done! (maybe?), I reordered the parapraghs, I'm not sure if that's what you meant.

• I removed his death age from the "Reign" section
• I would remove the sentence about Klippel-Feil syndrome, as he didn't have it, and the research supporting it (as far as I can tell) was just a Discovery Channel documentary, not scholarly work

The following line explains what you just said... I don't see a reason to remove it since it's not disruptive.

Was there significant evidence of the Klippel-Feil syndrome? All the article states is that it was brought up in a Discovery Channel documentary, but then it was discredited. Was it a common belief about him, or just something they said on the documentary without strong evidence?

• I removed the National Geographic quote, as it is pretty long and simply states that malaria may have been a cause of his death
• The Genealogy sub-section goes back-and-forth on who Tut's mother is. As far as I can tell, the final conclusion is that Tut's mom was also Akhenaten's sister? The paragraph could be streamlined.

I really can't find the back-and-forth you're talking about, his father was Akhenaten and his mother was The younger Lady, Akhenaten's sister. Their parents (Tut's grandparents) were Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye. If you can fix the problem that would be great, because I can't find it.

• Which study is being referenced when discussing genetic testing for the fetuses found in Tut's tomb?
• I changed "final days" to "death"
• Overall comment for the death sub-section is that it should be rewritten to only include viable theories, and the descriptions of the scientific techniques used should be limited to naming the technique itself (CT scans, genetic testing, etc.) rather than explaining the methods.

Done! I removed all disproven info.

• All of the researcher name drops are unnecessary
• The hurried burial information, if included, should be in a different portion of the sub-section. The paragraph starts out saying that the causes of death are debated, and then transitions immediately to stating that the burial was quick

Done! I removed it.

• "death was accidental" implies that there was some event which killed him, when it seems that people attribute it to diseases
• There is a large chunk of this section that delves into the rejected theories of his death; it's not necessary to include

Done! I removed all disproven info.

• I would remove the "Aftermath" section, as it isn't about Tut himself

Done! I removed the section.

Significance

• This section can be removed and/or merged with the "Reign" sub-section

Done! I merged it with the "Reign" section.

Tomb

• The paragraphs in this section are all pretty short; many of them could be combined
• Where is Tut's body? The paragraph starts that his body is in the tomb in the Valley of the Kings, but then says it was displayed in 2007 at the Luxor?

Done! I removed the confusion.

• Remove conversationally-toned worded such as "it seems clear" and "presumably"
• I rewrote a paragraph
• Remove the "study of artifacts" phrase, as that is self-explanatory to say that archaeological research revealed insights into the time period
• Remove and cite "according to Nicholas Reeves." Is Reeves's theory widely accepted among Egyptologists?
• I rewrote the funerary goods. It shouldn't have an "etc." in it.
• I would remove the hidden chamber paragraph

Done! I removed the paragraph.

• Paraphrase the information about the curse from The Lancet

Done! I paraphrased the paragraph.

Legacy

• This section should be shortened. While it's important to note that Tut has achieved notoriety throughout the world, it's unnecessary to list every individual exhibit. I recommend a rewrite, and I'll address the rewrite with comments.

Done! I removed unnecessary extra info.

Copyright violations

• There is a large amount of text that is the same with this page and a National Geographic article, and it isn't just quoted text.
• There is also a large amount of the same text with the Wikipedia page and this page, but I'm not sure if the latter may have copied from Wikipedia.

I think it's copied from Wikipedia; it was published in 2016, this page was published in 2001.

Comment

@Balon Greyjoy: I have just noticed that the nominator has seem to retired from being on Wikipedia. HawkAussie (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@HawkAussie: Thanks for the information. His page previously had the retired template, but it has since been removed. @NightBag10: Are you going to continue updating this page? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Hey, I'm still here, Wikipedia has thousands of templated; so I didn't know which one to use. I was just taking a break. I will continue to edit it. If you could please tell me what's left in the article? So I can hit the ground running again. Thanks for understanding, sorry for the hassle. NightBag10 (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Updated comments

• Make sure the text has in-line citations

Could you be more specific? NightBag10 ^(talk) 23:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

There are quite a few paragraphs that end without an in-line citation. Some of them have one within the paragraph, but there is still information in the paragraph that is uncited. Make sure that the sources for either the entire paragraph or the uncited sentences are properly referenced.

I added some improvement tags to give you guidance on what to fix here. Please address them before removing them. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know every parapgraph needs a citation at the end. I'm working on them currently though. NightBag10 ^(talk) 17:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. NightBag10 ^(talk) 00:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Fix the broken citation

Done. NightBag10 ^(talk) 23:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• There's a lot of similarity with the National Geographic article. Compare the two, and paraphrase the copied text

I found one paragraph, which I paraphrased. If there are others please let me know. NightBag10 ^(talk) 23:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• The lead section has information about alternate identities that aren't mentioned again throughout the page, which they should be, per WP:LEAD

Acutally I've just checked the lead section and it only mentions alrenate names, not identities. If there's something I'm missing please let me know. NightBag10 ^(talk) 22:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"likely the 18th dynasty king Rathotis who, according to Manetho, an ancient historian, had reigned for nine years—a figure that conforms with Flavius Josephus's version of Manetho's Epitome" There is no other mention throughout the article of the name Rathotis, or the source material of Manetho's Epitome

@Balon Greyjoy: Basically, from my understanding, Manetho was an Egyptian priest, he wrote about the history of Egypt in the Greek language. So "Rathotis" is Tut's name in Greek, Tut reigned for 9 years which is what Manetho said. See this. "But the copies were poorly transcribed and contained many inconsistencies. Josephus, the Jewish historian of the first century AD, for example, indicates that he had two different versions that differed on some details." Apperantly copies were poor, but Josephus's two copies concured about Tut. (sorry for the bad and very unprofessional English) NightBag10 ^(talk) 02:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay; I thought that I had already responded to this, but must have not saved it. The issue is that information in the lead section is not mentioned throughout the article. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is for summarizing the information found in the article below; there should be no information in the lead that isn't mentioned below in the page. That's the reason that reference tags in the lead section aren't required.

@Balon Greyjoy: I'll do my best, but don't expect 5 paragraphs about this. NightBag10 ^(talk) 18:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Done, see names section. NightBag10 ^(talk) 19:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• My direction was too vague when I said to not name-drop researchers. The organizations they represent should still be mentioned, but the individual researchers that were involved don't need to be mentioned. *There are multiple vague reference to "a research team," "several experts," and the like.

Done, I added what I removed. NightBag10 ^(talk) 00:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• I would shorten the description of the travels of the exhibit. Additionally, I would be consistent on the inclusion of the dates for where the tomb was.

I've already shortened it a lot, if it's not absolutely necessary then I think it should stay. I've already removed a lot of paragraphs from the article as per your request, any more and the article will be too short. Also, where exactly are the tomb dates? NightBag10 ^(talk) 00:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It's inconsistent that the dates for some stops on the exhibition tour are given: "returning to Egypt in August 2008," "An encore of the exhibition in the United States ran at the Dallas Museum of Art from October 2008 to May 2009." In other areas, no dates, or even specific locations, are given: "The exhibition started in Los Angeles, then moved to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Chicago and Philadelphia. The exhibition then moved to London," "The tour continued to other U.S. cities." I'm guessing you don't have dates/locations for each individual stop, so I would just list start/end dates for the tour, and then include in one sentence the cities to which it went.

Done. NightBag10 ^(talk) 18:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@NightBag10: There are still quite a few things that need to be changed, mostly related to speculation/vague referencing individuals. Rather than playing a telephone game with my comments, I'll make edits directly to the article. I'll be requesting a second opinion once I am complete with my edits (some of which I've already made) to ensure fairness in this process; I don't want to revamp the article and then effectively approve my own edits for GA. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

To the second reviewer, NightBag10 has made significant improvements to this article. I'm requesting a second opinion because I made some substantial changes to the article as well, and primarily removed speculative material and reworded sentences to refrain from either namedropping individual researchers or vague references to people. Please reach out to myself or NightBag10 if you have any questions or request any changes. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, the article is almost ready for GA. However, there was an existing citation needed tag, and I've added two more in "Names", one for the table, which is wholly uncited, and one for the paragraph after it, ditto. Once those are fixed, I'd say it is good to go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to say that a second reviewer has looked at the article in the template? I clicked on the review button expecting to help but it looks like this is covered. Kees08 (Talk) 23:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional sourcing comments

There seem to be two non-working links: Hieroglyphs Without Mystery and How were the Egyptian pyramids built? Haukur (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Second opinion review

Initial concerns have been addressed  Done
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The name of the article and the first use in the lede seems to indicate that there are two spellings. The actual source for reference 3 is for the word "Tutankahmen" with the e spelling, so this reference is only for the explanatory note (which itself does not clarify that the alternative spelling is British) and the article, as yet, has no source for the spelling used. Done As part of trying to fix this portion of the article, as well as the footnote on the reconstructed pronunciation, I am going to be using the article; Ahmose I as comparison.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC) There are a large number "citation needed" tags. This was a red flag so I thought I'd check the remaining quick fail criteria just to be sure and; An article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as a quick fail) if, prior to the review: It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria It contains copyright violations It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags (See also {{QF}}) It is not stable due to edit warring on the page</l While the quick fail criteria states that you may fail any article which includes any of the above...the article shows 3 of the 4 criteria for quick fail, copyright being the most serious. At a glance, I also am a little concerned with the digital hieroglyphics as they do not seem to be supported by sources and I am concerned about other formatting issues this may cause as well as seeing impaired access.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Footnotes - The first footnote has a citation but more information follows the citation. Everything must have a citation or you must lose the content. Done The second footnote apears to be entirely citing non English sources. What is the strength of these non English sources and how accurate are their claims? In order to allow readers some way to understand the strength of the sources and claims, a translation of their quotes is strongly suggested for the English Wikipedia. See WP:RSUE; "if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page". With such a contentious claim as this, not having more explanation in the notes is a glaring omission. Ok, this is partially  Done but we need to get assistance from the original editors from the article Egyptian language to help with adding page numbers on some sources and fix the source stacking to put the citations next to their claims.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC) There's nothing wrong with citing non-English sources. There might possibly be a question whether reconstructing the pronunciation based on a number of different pages from these sources is too SYNTH/OR-y but we'd have to look at them to develop an opinion on that. But having to read a bit of French or German should be the least of our worries. In fact, I'd fully expect an excellent article on Tutankhamun to cite a few sources in French and German and I would be suspicious of one that didn't. As for the article as a whole I certainly don't think it meets the GA criteria and I'm glad you're going through it so thoroughly. Haukur (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC) Thank you. Of course, no, there is nothing wrong with using Non English sources and yes, for this article one would expect some non-English sources if there are no other sources of equal strength in English. As I understand these sources they are citing an explanatory note explaining the reconstruction of the pronunciation. According to; Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines (linguistics and Archaeological science); "Wikipedia's no-original-research policy allows routine calculations based on data from reliable sources." and "Routine calculations frequently involve converting units, rounding to appropriate levels of precision for the article, describing quantitative relationships in words, and other simple methods that both accurately describe the information from the source(s) and do not tend to advance a novel argument." And suggests; "If a calculation, although routine, takes more than one or two steps, it may be helpful to present the details of the calculation in a note to the text.". Because of this and the explanation and suggestions at RSUE, I am basically disputing the content and requesting English explanations of what the sources actually say or an added quote from each book in the citation translated into English so English readers are able to verify the content in a reasonable manner. I would also accept that translation or explanation placed here and I can simply work from there. If the books had previews or were more widely available in libraries, I could do the translation myself but these are from 1960 and 1983. I need assistance in understanding the claims of the authors.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC) I suspect whoever knew enough to use these three sources also knew enough to get this right. But it would be fun to follow this up so let's see what we can do. Vycichl seems to be available online so I'll start there. Haukur (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC) Yes. Thank you for any assistance. That would be awesome! I'll dig through the history and fond the contributor if you haven't already.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC) The Vycichl citation apears to have been added as a short citation -Vycichl (1983:10, 224, 250) but you do not have a reference section to correspond with the short citation, which is also an MOS violation. Stick to one format. Because of this, the citation is not verifiable. has been converted into a full inline citation with the name of the book as well as a convenience link to the book and author. Done--Mark Miller (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC) Reference #7 has a convenience link to something entirely unrelated to "Hieroglyphs Without Mystery" when there is a free preview of the actual book on Google books. Citation #8 is a web travel log and does not apear to be a reliable source with editorial oversite and a reputation for fact checking. To be honest, I cannot see using obscure websites to source historic facts when there are easily hundreds of book sources covering many decades that are easily located in public libraries. So far, this looks sloppy and unconvincing. At this point I pretty much feel inclined to fail but will run through the most glaring issues I see. *Image File:The Moment Carter Opens the Tomb.JPG dated 5 November 1922 or 27 November 1922 ~ The copyright of this image is in question. Copy right law; Automatic Extension for Works in Renewal Term Works originally copyrighted after 1922 and renewed before 1978. These works were automatically given a longer copyright term. Copyrights that had already been renewed and were in their second term at any time between December 31, 1976, and December 31, 1977, inclusive, do not need to be renewed again. They have been automatically extended to last for a total term of 95 years (a first term of 28 years plus a renewal term of 67 years) from the end of the year in which they were originally secured. For more information about renewal of copyright, see Circular 15, Renewal of Copyright. The New York Times certainly re-registered their copy right on their image/or it can be assumed they did, for such historic events and works. In checking the source for this image at Commons, it is clear this was taken from the online store of the NYT where they sell their copy protected work. The image has been removed as a potential, if not sure copyright issue. The math seems clear. Public domain began in 2017 (28 years from 1922 plus 67 years).--Mark Miller (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC) The Ancestry section is using the wrong template. That is an ascending family tree/history. You could simply add the proper pedigree template or change the header to family tree however, it needs to be referenced with inline citations. Yes, the family tree is supposed to have a reference or several if a contentious claim or uses multiple sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Second opinion review checklist

Well-written:

1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
• 2nd reviewer comment - There are still some issues needing to be addressed but far less after removing redundant mentions and incorporating other contributions into other sections etc. but almost there. not yet. Done--Mark Miller (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
   • 2nd reviewer comment - Article complies with manual of style guidelines for layout, words to watch and fiction  Done but still needs review for lead sections and list incorporation. not yet Done--Mark Miller (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research:

1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
   • 2nd reviewer comment - Complies with presentation in accordance with the layout style guideline.  Done--Mark Miller (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
   • 2nd reviewer comment - Article almost complies with the above. Most scientific claims are in accordance to MOS but not all reference have been reviewed. Nearly there. not yet Done--Mark Miller (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
3. it contains no original research; and
4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
• 2nd reviewer comment and assistance requested from original reviewer Balon Greyjoy. "My lord", I have paid the iron price and seek a quick copyright check as you initially ran earlier in your review, please/ Because this isn't the seven kingdoms and please and thank you still go a long way. But that would actually help me a lot. Done--Mark Miller (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
• 2nd reviewer comment for NightBag10 - The digital hieroglyphics could not be verified entirely. There is some discrepancy with the fist Horus Falcon and its use as well as how the template forms the Horus name in particular. It appears from the sources that, by description, the Horus Falcon should be seated atop the rudimentary plan of the palace. I am not entirely sure about the long brackets but the description calls for the palace floor plan to be on top and the "niched enclosure wall across the bottom". This describes a set protocol intended for top to bottom reading for symbolic, religious and royal titular protocol. Sources depicting the name reading left to right do not show the "rectangle incorporating two views of a place compound". So, I am unclear if this indicates a less formal use of the Horus Name in that manner or not. The other issue is that the Horus Falcon must have the dual crown of Upper and Lower Egypt as part of the Two Ladies reference. But...when I tried to use our digital hieroglyphics, I discovered that we don't yet have that symbol. Would you settle on SVG recreations that can be used without a background? They would be illustrative only but could be created for each of the five main names and in what I believe is the proper top to bottom form.?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: Hi, I've been inactive for quite a while, waiting for a 2nd reviewer, I will get back to editing now. Could you please link the sources that you found, so I could better understand the porblem. Thanks, NightBag10 ^(talk) 12:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

NightBag10 I didn't get that ping but don't worry most of the above has been taken car of.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Mark Miller I feel like I didn't do anything because the article has changed so much, but thank you Mark Miller, thanks Balon Greyjoy. I know I shouldn't have nominated it in the first place, and I am sorry for that. Thanks again, NightBag10 ^(talk) 17:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

There was no support for closing the review and support for continuing to improve towards GA. Instructions for GA review allow some discretion for reviewer to fix problems on the article if they feel they are easy enough to accomplish. It wasn't that difficult but there was a substantial amount of changes so it might look like a complete re-write. It retains the core of the article as I found it but required changes in summary of sources, citation formatting and checking data from references etc.. It was time consuming but I enjoy that sort of thing on occasion. Experienced editors helped a great deal so the nomination, while perhaps ill conceived at first, was important enough to others to help with the more technical translations and interpretation of hieroglyphics and sources themselves explaining those hieroglyphics. So thank you to Balon Greyjoy for accepting the review and requesting assistance from editors with more knowledge of the subject. Thank you to Merytat3n for all of their support and contributions, some of which really made this article accurate, not to mention cleaning up a few of my mistakes. While we did not always agree on sourcing and content, they were patient and extremely detailed. For a new editor, this was a positive experience in collaboration. Also, thank you to Haukur for their assistance in rescuing information and mention of a difficult to source part of the article.

Articles are never finished. Now I will work on shortening all the book citations so multiple claims can be cited to the same reference to help expand more details. The subject is handled as broadly as the majority of all sources however, (isn't there always a "but...") the reason the Egyptian Museum in Cairo is not mentioned as yet, is because there is very little documented about it, in regards to its acquisition of the Tut artifacts. It apears there was a controversy and some legal issues that caused Carter to close down the tomb in 1924. It apears it had something to do with the amount of the share of Carter and Carnarvon's part in the Tutankhamun finds. Up until this point, archeology in Egypt was being carried out by license of the Egyptian government to wealthy foreigners (who also held positions within the government) allowing by contract, a 50 -50 split of all finds to go between the Egyptian Government and the funding patron of archeological excavations~ Davis and Carter and Carnarvon. None of them took anywhere near 50% of their finds as they wanted to be generous but after inventorying Carnarvon's collection after the Earl's death there was more controversy. Carnarvon left his entire collection of Egyptian antiquities to the Metropolitan Museum of Art (including all of the Tut finds) for them to purchase and bequeathed that Carter be sole agent and receive the full commission of its sale. This angered the 6th Earl and there is some interesting history of note about Highclere Castle and the new Earl's reaction to his father leaving everything to others that leads to current day. I need to pick up book sources for more details but it seems this was what ended archeological free enterprise in Egypt.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your tireless work here, Mark. It's an article that gets thousands of hits every day so every improvement is especially welcome and useful.[1] Haukur (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Over 1 million visits per year? I didn't realize this met that threshold. Million awards for everyone. ;)--Mark Miller (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)