Talk:Menches

Content and prose review

I will comment on anything I notice, but not all of my comments will be strictly related to the GA criteria, so not everything needs to be actioned. Feel free to push back if you think I am asking too much, and please tell me when I am wrong. And thank you a lot for making a review pledge! When you start your pledged review, please list it in the table at WP:GARP and/or link to this page. —Kusma (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• Lead: will comment on completeness later.
• You could add life dates in parentheses; as we don't seem to know more, just use {{fl}} to for something like (fl. 119 BCE–110 BCE)?

Done.

• Is it worth mentioning where Kerkeosiris is?

Good idea.

• Biography: might be good to add a few dates for those who have forgotten when Alexander the Great reigned (we are 200 years later than Alexander here, but the article could be read as if Menches lived soon after Ptolemy I).

Done.

• "Another man named Mestasutmis has been identified as a possible brother of Menches, as they were business partners and both had a father named Polemon" I don't understand; I thought the father was Petesouchos and the brother was Polemon?

It is supposed to be Petesouchos, I don't know how I made that mistake but the sources are clear on that point.

It is better now, but shouldn't the identification of Mestasutmis with Menches then be something like the connection of Mestasutmis to Menches or mention the word "brother" again? —Kusma (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Career as scribe: the link to the redirect basilikos grammateus is not very helpful I think.

Struck that.

• Mention that Krokodeilopolis is also in Faiyum oasis?

Done.

• Is it worth adding a word or two to say what cleruchic means? (MOS:NOFORCELINK isn't a GA requirement, but I think it is good practice)

I'll have to give some thought as to how to summarize Ptolemaic cleruchy in a short way. I'm not even sure if I should link to the cleruchy page at all since it's almost a different institution in that era.

• Archive of Menches: the start of the section isn't really about "disposal", it is more about how the archive came about?

I just removed the entire subheading.

• Disposal and reuse as cartonnage: if the city of Faiyum is the same as Krokodeilopolis, it is best to mention this or not use different names.

That's my mistake, I was using two different sources that used different names (ancient v. modern) for the same city.

• Rediscovery and publication: became at frustrating at only finding this needs some copyediting

Oops, fixed.

• Is it worth giving an example on how the papyri are an important source of information? If you have more, you could start with a "Content" subsection?

Good idea, I've expanded it into a Content and historical significance subsection.

• Verhoogt (1997) is not in the list of references, causing "Harv errors" that you can find using the script User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js

That was my error, I've fixed it.

First read through done. Generally seems to be in good shape. The lead seems a bit short, though. There is only very little about the career as a scribe and there could also be more about the archaeologists. —Kusma (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@Kusma: Thank you for reviewing this, you caught a lot of places for improvement. I made all of the quick corrections and am going to expand the lead, explanation of cleruchy, and information about the content of the papyri tonight. Edward056686 (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@Kusma: I've fixed the lead, the cleruchy and added the papyrus contents section. Edward056686 (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Looking good (but one remark above). I will have another pass based more strictly on the GA criteria and then we should be done soon. —Kusma (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Source spotchecks

Numbering from Special:PermanentLink/1348112299.

• Looking at p. 1 of Verhoogt 1997 (), he says the collection is "generally but inaccurately" called the Archive of Menches. The book seems generally a great source.

I changed the opening line of "The collection of papyri commonly called the "archive of Menches" contain roughly 200 documents" to reference Verhoogt.

• 2a,b: fine.
• 7: I think the content you use extends slightly onto p. 60

Edited the page range.

• 9a,b: fine
• 17: ok
• 24a: I can't see the name Haryotes in these pages; possibly I am missing it but could you tell me where it is?

I can't find it now, so I swapped in Waebens as a source for the name.

• 31: fine
• 41a: I see "a breakdown in 1906–07", not in 1907.

Fixed.

Excellent sources, a few very small potential inaccuracies, no obvious copyvio/paraphrasing concerns. —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, one note about naming. Dorothy J. Thompson published one of the sources under the name Dorothy J. Crawford, but she's gone by Thompson for decades. I'm using Crawford in the article but linking to her Wikipedia page which is under her current name. Edward056686 (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

General comments and GA criteria

• Prose is fine, minor issues addressed above.
• No MoS issues; lead is now a decent summary of the article.
• Reference layout is fine for GA. If you ever take the article further, the capitalisation in reference titles should be made consistent (do not use all caps, consider when to use title case or sentence case).
• Great sources, well used, captures the main points of the topic as presented in sources without unnecessary detail.
• No indication of copyvio or too close paraphrasing, both by automated tools and from spot checks.
• No neutrality or stability concerns.
• Image review: all images are relevant and have compatible licenses. All are relevant and have sufficient captions, with perhaps the exception of the map, which could perhaps clarify the historical period a bit more (at least "Ancient Egypt"; ideally some indication of which millennium we are looking at). A photograph of one or more of the papyri would be great, but I have no idea about their potential licensing status...

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

Just a small question mark in the content section and a tiny one about the map caption. Over to you Edward056686. —Kusma (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Kusma: Thanks again, I made those last changes you recommended. I've been thinking about the papyri and there are plenty of photos and scans out there. I might have to email someone to see if they know more about the licensing status of images of the papyri, but some of them should be free. Edward056686 (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good, time to promote :) —Kusma (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)