Talk:Treasure of El Lahun/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA review

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

Nominator: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 03:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 20:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)


Great topic. It looks all good but we need some work towards criterion 1 (well-written, especially WP:MTAU). In general, we need to do more to make this a pleasant read for a reader without a deep background in archeology. Below I give some examples; it would be great if you could go through the text and see what you can do in that sense:

  • The treasure of El Lahun is the name given to a significant cache – "the name given to" is superfluous and could be removed. Also, we should wiki-link "cache".
  • belonging to sꜣt-nsw[a] Sithathoriunet,[b] presumed daughter of Senusret II – this I found difficult to follow, especially since it is in the lead which should be particularly accessible. First, sꜣt-nsw should be explained directly in the text, and it should be clear that Senusret II was a king. Take it a bit slower, e.g.: "belonging to Sithathoriunet, a kings daughter (sꜣt-nsw), presumably of Senusret II". Or maybe just remove sꜣt-nsw here; is it really needed for the lead?
    What do you think of bypassing discussion of her titulary in the lede with just: ... belonging to Sithathoriunet, presumed daughter of pharaoh Senusret II ...? And then I can address it in the body of the article at first mention.
  • The cache was discovered about 10 February 1914 and reported by Flinders Petrie in The Times (UK) on 20 May 1914,[2] but the full publication of the excavation reports at the site of the pyramid of Senusret II – Lahun by Guy Brunton and Lahun II by Petrie, Brunton, and Margaret Alice Murray – was delayed until 1920 and 1923 respectively owing to the course of the Great War – This is a runaway sentence. It also uses terms that have not been introduced or explained, such as "Lahun II".
  • I have split the sentence in two, but I'm not sure what you mean with 'terms that have not been introduced': [T]he excavation reports at the site of the pyramid of Senusret II are Lahun and Lahun II. That was the introduction. The two terms are book titles. I put dashes around them because you can skip the titles and authors entirely and still understand the sentence (at least, I hope): [T]he full publication of the excavation reports at the site of the pyramid of Senusret II ... was delayed until 1920 and 1923 respectively owing to the course of the Great War. But it is worth mentioning the excavation reports as they are the standard work on the pyramid complex, and Lahun is additionally a major source for this article.
  • sꜣt-nsw – Explain this in main text too
  • "cloisonné" – terms like these could do well with an in-text explanation to help the reader along.
  • I broadly agree with this particularly as regards MTAU. I'm not sure how to approach it though. It would be easy enough for me to write a footnote for each technical term, but writing an in-line explanation as I'm mentioning them would be difficult (especially where I have multiple technical terms within a few spaces of each other, 'ajouré uraeus' comes to mind). This leaves the option to omit the technical language from the lede, but I'm unsure whether that's the best option.
  • "One plausible format was reconstructed by Winlock with gold stripes" – When giving names, we should introduce them. Who is Winlock? I assume it is an egyptologist?
  • I get your point, and I used to do this, but I've had it brought up to me at FAC that it is tiring to read 'the Egyptologist so-and-so' twenty times in prose. Particularly with how 'Egyptologist' sticks out differently from 'art historian' or 'archaeologist'. Nearly everyone named in the article (and others of its kind) are Egyptologists. Only occasionally are outside specialists cited, for example Émile Séraphin Vernier was a sculptor with expertise in ancient Egyptian jewellery. The thing is, Egyptology is a multi-disciplinary field, and anyone that studies it is technically an Egyptologist. I can ask a couple other editors that have experience at GAN and FAC what approach they take on this point.
    I have also moved a bunch of full names to first mention, having neglected to check for this after a bunch of reformatting.

Other small things:

  • "were stored in Britain until 1919 when it" – "they"?
  •  Done
  • "The treasure was contained in the easternmost of four shaft tombs sunk south of the pyramid" – Does that mean that the tombs were south of the pyramid, not inside the pyramid?
  • Correct. The tombs are south of the physical pyramid. This a tedious bit of prose to write because when Egyptologists write about the 'pyramid of Senusret II' (or whomever) they are not talking about the pyramid. There is an entire complex of buildings surrounding the pyramid itself that are included in that name. So I have to be mindful when writing that the tomb is south of the pyramid but is not south of the pyramid complex.
    On that note, I actually have a mistake of sorts in writing in the lede: she was buried with these in a shaft tomb south of the pyramid of Senusret II. Yes and no. The tomb is south of the pyramid, but within the pyramid complex. I have rephrased it to the tighter 'south of Senusret II's pyramid'. Which retains the same plain meaning, but also doesn't suggest that the tomb is outside the complex. There are quite a few choices Egyptologists have made that cause the average reader confusion, e.g. many complexes have a 'causeway', but this has nothing to do with a causeway.

Sourcing Look all high quality. Citations seem a bit excessive (sometimes citing seven or more sources at once) but that's ok with me. I am required to do a spot check, but that's difficult without access to these sources. Would you mind providing quotes from the respective source for the particular sentences I select for checking, per WP:SPOTCHECK? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for taking on the review Jens Lallensack. I'll go through these points today or tomorrow. I can provide quotes for statements as you need them. The bulky cite blocks are generally to summarise descriptions of items – there is variance between sources in what each discusses and they do occasionally conflict which I note in footnotes (e.g. older sources thought that the claw anklets were supposed to be a necklace). For analyses I've usually kept to smaller cite blocks (e.g. the interpretation of the feline-heads).
A few of the major sources here are accessible: Brunton's Lahun I is available online on archive.org (it is PD); Patch and Roehrig's contributions to Ancient Egypt Transformed: The Middle Kingdom are available via The Met's website under publications; archive.org also has a copy of Winlock's The Treasure of El Lahun that can be borrowed. These three sources give detailed descriptions of items where cited and will usually cover much of any description. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
I have to run now, but I've addressed the couple easy ones and left comments – broadly requests for guidance, more than anything else – on most others. I have noted the sꜣt-nsw question and will address it later. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
One more thing, I am considering taking this article to FAC – you're experienced there as well – so be as critical as you need to. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Jens Lallensack – Pinging, as it has been a month since any comments were left in the review. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Oops, my apologies, and thanks for the pin, it somehow went off my radar. Will work on this asap. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Second round

I see a few general issues that I think should be addressed:

Runaway sentences

  • You have many very long sentences that are quite hard to read:
  • Two of the five chests belonging to Sithathoriunet were reconstructed by Arthur Cruttenden Mace for The Met[16] who wrote of them, in the museum's Bulletin … – I suggest to start a new sentence for the quote.
  • They may have represented the hieroglyphs for pḥty meaning 'strength', though this was written with two leopard-heads facing the same direction;[87] perhaps they served an apotropaic function to protect the wearer;[88] or as representations of Šw and Tfnwt derived from a typical presentation where they face opposite directions with the sun rising between them;[89] they may depict the eye of Ra often represented as a companion goddess to Rꜥ that protected him from his foes during his daily journey;[89] or they may have served as symbols of rejuvenation and fertility. – again, spit into several sentences? I don't think the "or" works well together with ;
  • The base bears the n sign representing the primordial waters; in the centre kneels the god Ḥḥ, an aspect of Nnw and the sign for 'one million', with a ḥfn sign for 'one hundred thousand' suspended from his right elbow; Ḥḥ clasps a pair of palm branch signs for rnpt or 'years' that support the cartouche of the king; flanking him are a pair of falcons, representations of Rꜥ-Ḥr-ꜣḫty, oddly with blue-green solar disks,[p] perched atop šn signs for 'to encircle' with a claw outstretched to clutch one of the palm branches; pinned between the falcon's chests and the cartouche are a pair of ꜥnḫ signs representing life which hang from the tails of two uraei, representing the Two Ladies, Nḫbt and Wꜣḏt. – another runaway sentence
  •  Done these.

Technical language (examples)

  • Šw and Tfnwt – here, and in many other places, I think we should use the English words. The dedicated Wikipedia articles use the English words, and at least one of your sources ("Ancient Egypt Transformed") uses them too. It would make the article much more accessible, I think.
  • I have  Done this as requested for the names of gods because that matches the presentation of Egyptian personal names. There are some valid reasons to reject the practice of injecting vowels into Egyptian words, particularly as there is not a universally accepted method of transliteration and many names can be rendered multiple ways, all of which are ultimately incorrect. Take the primary individual mentioned in this article: Sithathoriunet. She is also called Sat-hathor-ant, Sit-hathor-yunet, and Sat-hathor-iunt among others.
  • perched atop šn signs – Again, here and in other places, give the English word
  • apotropaic function – what is that? Explain in-text, or at least link
  • I've added a link. The explanation is literally just 'warding magic'.
  • The frame was crowned by a gold torus mould and ivory cavetto cornice – terms such as these should probably be briefly explained in-text
  • Which terms do you mean specifically? Note also that I've provided the reader with two footnotes for the architectural elements (one explaining their significance and the other containing a photograph displaying them).
  • pectoral – I would also explain this
  • ajouré – Need to be linked in main text and I suggest to explain it, as with cloisonné
  • link anklet
  • link papyrus
  • link whetstones
  • link myrrh
  • I have added the requested links. I will try to add footnotes explaining the techniques mentioned. Explaining them in-text will, I think, overload the sentences with extraneous information.
  • what is kohl?
  • A common cosmetic product still used by dozens of cultures globally (particularly in Africa and Asia; much less in Europe or its descendant nations). Akin to eyeliner or eyeshadow but distinct from both.
  • Nymphaea plant motif – why not stick to "water lily"?
  •  Done
  • base bears the n sign – link n sign to somewhere?
  • There isn't a good place to link. The only viable option is Egyptian Hieroglyph N035 which is a disambiguation page with little content. I don't think it should even exist. No other hieroglyph has a disambiguation page like it, and only a handful of the most important hieroglyphs have dedicated articles.
  • primordial waters – What's that? No link
  • There is a link to this as regards Egyptian religion, but it's at Nun (mythology) in the next sentence. I have added a link to cosmic ocean because linking the same article twice a few words apart isn't sensible.
  • chitin – I think this is an unnecessary technical term, and it is not even linked. Replace with "the beetle's surface" or something more readily understood.
  • I've replaced with 'scarab's surface'.
  • cowrie shells – link
  •  Done

Off-topic content (examples)

Providing context, including comparison with other burials, is very important. However, my feeling is that you provide too much detail when mentioning other burials, and suggest to drastically reduce those parts and focus on the actual takeaways, the info that is directly relevant for the Lahun treasure. The GA criteria require that the article is focused on the topic and I'm not sure that's always the case.

  • These ointment jars were typical of Middle Kingdom burials and are well-attested in other burials – You have a whole paragraph here on the jars of other sites, which is much longer than the description of the Lahun treasure. I would drastically reduce this part, only retaining general info (important for context) and important differences to the EL Lahun finds.
  • one from el-Riqqa and another fragmentary one from Harageh,[t] and two others of unknown provenance, one possibly from Byblos held in Beirut and the other possibly from Dahshur held in Eton College. They are further depicted on the daughters of Djehutyhotep, a nomarch, in his tomb in Deir el-Bersheh and on a statue of sꜣt-nsw Neferet. – goes a bit off-topic too
  • Two or three belonged to Sithathor and Mereret, the latter lady having one with large cowries like Sithathoriunet's and apparently another with much smaller shells.[64] A fourth girdle was owned by Weret II which lacked the pellets and clasp present in other girdles. – same

Sourcing and spot checks

  • For the three books that can be accessed online, it would help a lot to link to the full-text.
  • but the robbers failed to notice a small recess carved into the lower half of the antechamber's west wall that contained five chests bearing many of her riches. The breaching of her tomb left it open to the elements allowing successive floods to fill the recess with mud and bury her treasures. While the organic contents of her hoard decayed and the tarnishable materials corroded irreparably, the artifacts sat otherwise undisturbed for millennia. – That's in the lead but I can't find it in the body? Therefore, it does not seem to have a source?
  • atop šn signs for 'to encircle' – Can you please confirm that the source specifically states that the sign means "to encircle" in this context, rather than "eternal protection"?
  • I checked four statements against the three sources provided above, and found no issues.

Other comments

  • The girdle[y] was composed of seven large opposite-facing feline-heads – you don't mention the material the heads are made of?
  •  Done – Clarified that they are of gold.
  • A modern wig adorned with the recovered gold rings reconstructed in a checkered pattern by The Met – So this is not the reconstruction referenced in the text but a different one?
  • They are the same one. Only Winlock's reconstruction with stripes is different.
  • The reverse is no less impressive – that's WP:PEACOCK? If you want to keep it, you should quote the one who said it, rather than stating this in wiki voice.
  • Altered. I only meant here that the reverse side is of the same level of craftsmanship as the obverse.
  • kneels the god Ḥḥ, an aspect of Nnw and the sign for 'one million' – So the god is the sign for one million, is that correct?
  • Yes.
  • are considered to be among the finest extant examples from ancient Egypt – Examples of what?
  • Of 'royal pectorals' as stated in the first half of the sentence.
  • The cowrie shell is an amuletic image – So it's not an actual shell, but a replica of one? That should be clarified early on. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Thanks for revisiting. I will try to get through these next week. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • I have addressed some of these. I have been too busy to edit Wikipedia much recently. Sorry. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI