Wikipedia:Peer review/Gebelein predynastic mummies/archive1

Ginger (mummy)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was updated as part of the uk:Chapter:Backstage Pass workshop with the British Museum. The article was reviewed at the time with Liam McNamara, a curator in the BM Egyptology dept and has been further sourced and formatted since that discussion.

A draft check-list is available for BM related articles at Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/BM#Informal_review_checklist that should be used to support peer review (as this review is a bit of a test for how other BM-related articles could be reviewed).

Thanks, Fæ (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I just peer reviewed Wikipedia:Peer review/Water Newton Treasure/archive1 and many of the same comments will apply here. As noted at the other PR, this is a good start, but a lot more work is need before it can be considered for something like Good Article. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

The article needs an improved lead section that is an actaul summary of the article - see WP:LEAD - and more article sections. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
As it currently reads, the lead is about the mummy itself, while the Exhibition history section is decent. I would make the current lead into a section on Discovery or something similar.
Article has better references than the other article I reviewed, but I would still add a ref for The body, which was nicknamed "Ginger" because of its red hair, was excavated from a shallow sand grave in the Egyptian desert at the end of the nineteenth century, and found to be exceptionally well-preserved.
Make sure refs are complete - for example the Hi Mummy I'm home article lists the author and so should the ref. {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
The article could be expanded - who discovered the mummy (looks like Wallis Budge, but say so more clearly). When did Ginger get put back on display after bing removed in 1987? WHat kind of work was done in the 1987 restoration? What is known about the culture that produced Ginger? What objects and other mummies were found with him? Do we know what kjind of person he was in life? That sort of thing.
A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there is a WP:FA on an archological find that may be a good model is Vasa (ship)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

File:Ginger (mummy) 1920.png: You could really crop this down to the actual photographic plate. This means that more detail is viewable at a smaller resolution; plate info, numbers can be put in the description template.
Ruhr is right on the money with most comments, but really the lead should be rewritten after any more content is added. Google Books suggests some places for starters (if you sort through the Jim Crow books), but I think going to a good library and using their resources will be the best bet to find good scholarly sources.
Hyphens in the article should be replaced by em-dashes (see WP:DASH). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]