Talk:Gebelein predynastic mummies

message: *Memoir of the discovery (p. 360)
* — Fæ (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial

message: It was pointed out to me that the mummification process likely to have been used could have lead to the red hair. However I have no sources to add so this may be pure speculation.
I note that Ramesses II's mummy also appears to have red hair (The Encyclopedia of Mummies) and red hair may not be that unusual if people with red hair were associated with the god Seth... so why would the staff at the BM nickname this mummy Ginger if it was not that unusual? Fæ (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Noticed an article about the study of Peruvian mummies where there was a theory that hair reddening was part of a melanine deterioration process. The article seemed a bit thin as evidence to me, as the conclusion was not definitive so I'm dropping this as a potential article topic. Fæ (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red hair 

message: P1 The article needs an improved lead section that is an actual summary of the article - see WP:LEAD - and more article sections. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
:Footnotes removed from lead and rephrased. Needs further re-think once more is added to the body. Fæ (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Body significantly re-written along with the lead, particularly after page re-name. Fæ (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Description and Excavation sections now added and expanded. Fæ (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

text: References improved, particularly after reviewing Dawson & Gray's volume. Fæ (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Tidied citations, added author and made date format consistent. Note that sources section uses citation template as this is needed for  to work. However non-harv footnotes can use whatever is most appropriate. Fæ (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Article expanded. Clarified Budge's excavation detail. There is no published record about the 1987 restoration (probably just very basic cleaning) so it is unlikely that more detail can be validly added. Some detail added about artefacts but Budge's account is limited, potentially more could still be said about the Predynastic period but this may deviate from the bodies and excavation. Fæ (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Photo cropped on commons. Position of plate in book added. Fæ (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I think the re-write in the last few days has made significant in-roads. Most of the detail available in the BM guide (Strudwick) and the 1967 scientific analysis (Dawson & Gray) that could be of value has been added. Other sources may have more detail to add on the exhibition history or possibly restoration methods, though as the bodies have had as little intervention as possible this is likely to be limited. Fæ (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Done. Fæ (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review actions 

message: Ginger is the common name for the mummified body, however the BM no longer encourage the nickname out of respect for human remains. Should we follow the same principle and move to a new name? Please add your suggestions if you have any. Fæ (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work guys, thanks! :-) Witty Lama 10:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move proposal