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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)