Talk:Menches

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that archaeologists found the papyri of Menches wrapped around mummified crocodiles?

• Source: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Egypt_in_the_Age_of_Cleopatra/a5U-8b-fVNgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA90&printsec=frontcover&dq=menches

• • Reviewed:

Created by Edward056686 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Edward056686 (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2026 (UTC).

• alt1... that most ancient Egyptian crocodiles who journied into the underworld didn't have the details of a man called Menches?
• alt2... that of the thousands of mummified crocodiles preserved in Egypt several held the details of a man called Menches?
• suggested 2 alts... what do you think? Victuallers (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • It's not accurate that the Menches papyri came from a single crocodile, there were at least 21 specimens with fragments related to that archive. Have edited the article so it's less misleading. I like your alts otherwise, I'd just change that one part. Edward056686 (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

    I see - I've tweaked them Victuallers (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

    • @Victuallers: Those are perfect, thank you. Edward056686 (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• OK! its new enough, long enough and built on numerous reliable sources. The hook is interesting but there are also alts checked by the author and cited. No evidence of paraphrasing. It's a good article nominee and I wish it good luck. Nice contribution. Thank you. Victuallers (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Menches/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Edward056686 (talk · contribs) 04:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 10:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

This looks very interesting, I will try to get this reviewed over the weekend. —Kusma (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peer review

Menches

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make it Featured Article quality soon. I've done my best with the prose and formatting, but I would appreciate additional eyes on all of it.

Thanks, Edward056686 (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Edward056686 progress seems to have ground to a halt here, with no comments in almost three weeks. Perhaps it's time to close this? RoySmith (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I think that's a good idea. Edward056686 (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

• after ancient Egypt had been conquered by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE I'm not sure you need to say "ancient Egypt". Wouldn't just plain "Egypt" be enough, given that you've already told them what year it was. Similar examples are in multiple places in the article. I don't feel strongly about this, so do whatever feels best.
• the village of Kerkeosiris, the location of which has not yet been discovered by archaeologists. I'd just say "... the location of which is not known".
• Map of ancient Egypt (c. 3150 BCE to 30 BCE) with Faiyum highlighted in red Per MOS:COLOR "Color should not be used as the sole visual means of conveying information". Also, if the ALT text is the same as the caption, just do "Refer to caption" per MOS:ALTINCAPTION.
• a man identified from personal correspondences in the Menches archive. It's not clear what "the Menches archive" is.
  • Ah, I see that's covered later. But at least here give some brief explaination so the reader isn't left wondering.
• It was a prestigious position that gave Menches I'd change that to "This was a ..."
• It is unknown when Menches was first appointed to the position of village scribe, but he was the incumbent scribe by 119 BCE. I suggest "Menches was appointed the the position of village scribe sometiems before 119 BCE"
• a cleruchic grant link to Cleruchy.
  • I went back and forth on this and decided not to link it because the page currently describes Classical Athenian cleruchies. The term kleroi is used for something pretty radically different in the Ptolemaic period, so the page would need to be either expanded or split in order to be relevant to Menches, and I don't have the time to devote to that right now. Edward056686 (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  OK, but then at least add something here explaining what Cleruchy means. I've never heard of it, and suspect neither will most of our readers. Also note that when you eventually bring this to WP:FAC, "I don't have the time to devote to that right now" is not going to be what reviewers want to hear, so make sure you nominate it when you know you will have a substantial amount of time to devote over the next three months. RoySmith (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  • • @RoySmith: I thought the explanation in the Menches article was enough but reading it again I see the ambiguity. I rewrote that paragraph so that it'll be more clear what it's describing. I am dedicating time to improving Menches, but I didn't know that I would need to link a page to that term. Cleruchy is about a different topic than this "cleruchy", so I need to either rewrite it to cover multiple topics or create a new page. Three months should be enough time for me to do that. In the meantime, should I add a line or two to the Menches article disambiguating it from the Athenian use of the term? I can describe the etymological links between Classical and Ptolemaic terminology, and possible (lack of) relationship between the Classical Athenian colonial system and the Hellenistic system. It can be removed later once I'm done with the cleruchy pages. Edward056686 (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

      Is the sense of Cleruchy you use here the same as what's being discussed in https://www.jstor.org/stable/24519342 or in https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah22057.pub2? Is it Clergy of ancient Egypt? RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

      • • The chapter from Thompson is exactly what I'm talking about, but no it's not related to Egyptian clergy or priestly functions at all. This line from the Menches article tries to be a concise explanation In Ptolemaic Egypt, the cleruchy was a system where the state distributed plots of farmland to members of the military as compensation for their service. I'm citing Fischer-Bovet currently but I can cite Thompson as well.Edward056686 (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
        • Fischer-Bovet describes Ptolemaic cleruchy like this the cleruchy, the system of distribution of land in exchange for military service to men who served only when needed. Edward056686 (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
          • @RoySmith: Can you tell me if the description in the Menches article is clear now, even if it doesn't link to a full page about the topic or explain other uses of the term? Edward056686 (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

            Yeah, what you've got now looks good, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

            • @RoySmith: Thank you! And sorry to keep bothering you with this. Edward056686 (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

              Not a problem. It's a nice little article about a subject that I knew nothing about yet kept my interest to the end. Good job. I'm looking forward to seeing this at FAC. RoySmith (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Menches shared the position of scribe with a man named Petesouchos, who might have been his brother or nephew. Earlier you say Petesouchos was his father.
  • These are apparently two different men. It was very common for families to reuse names (such as naming a son after his father or grandfather), so they might have been related. I tried to make the distinction more clear. Edward056686 (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• was published in two parts; the first part was published in 1933 and the second in 1938. just say " the first in 1933 and the second in 1938".

Overall, I think this is is pretty good shape. The prose is engaging (WP:FACR 1a). I know nothing of the topic area so I can't comment on 1b (comprehensive) or 1c (well-researched). RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thank you for this review! I revised the article and answered a couple of your questions. Edward056686 (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Michael Aurel

Nice to see that something from the ancient world will be turning up at FAC soon. I'll take a look at this shortly. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

As you'll notice, I haven't done the entire thing: this is the lead through to the beginning part of the "Career as scribe" section, and the top of the "Archive of Menches" section.

• Menches (fl. 119–110 BCE) was an ancient Egyptian scribe who lived during the Ptolemaic period. Between 119 and 110 BCE, he was the village scribe of Kerkeosiris, in the Faiyum Oasis of Egypt. As a scribe, ... Menches lived during a period when the Greek Ptolemaic dynasty ruled Egypt. – There's nothing wrong with this, but it feels as though we might be repeating ourselves in a few ways. We use "Ptolemaic period" in the first sentence and "period when the Greek Ptolemaic dynasty ruled Egypt" in the next paragraph. We place "fl. 119–110 BCE" in brackets and write out the range "Between 119 and 110 BCE" at the beginning of the next sentence. We say "he was the village scribe" and in the next sentence include "As a scribe, he was responsible for recording ... in his village". In isolation, none of these are anything to get worked up about, but all taken together it does start to feel as though a little bit of trimming or reorganising could be beneficial here.
  • Y
    • What you've done is definitely an improvement. What I'd query about now is whether the initial sentence of the lead is prioritising the right information. In Menches (fl. 119–110 BCE) was an ancient Egyptian scribe who lived during the Ptolemaic period, when a Greek dynasty ruled Egypt, you've put the parts about the Ptolemaic period and the Ptolemaic dynasty together (which is probably a good move), but the Ptolemaic period, when a Greek dynasty ruled Egypt isn't directly about Menches. I think a reader might wonder why we're emphasising the dynasty; for example, did he have some special connection with it? One option would be to move the bit about the period and dynasty back down to the beginning of the first paragraph, where it could be linked in with the Greek descent and Greek name. You could perhaps then explicitly state "known to have been active between 119 and 110 BCE" (or similar) in the lead sentence, or perhaps move the bit about his being the village scribe of Kerkeosiris into the lead sentence. There might be other, better options here; see what you can do. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
      • Rewriting the lead like that did improve readability, I also made some other changes to tighten the focus of the intro. Edward056686 (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
        • Nice. I think those are improvements. Perhaps remove (fl. 119–110 BCE) now that we have those two dates in the lead sentence? – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
          • Y
• During his lifetime, Egypt experienced a period of anarchy stemming from a civil war fought by Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra III against Cleopatra II. – I think this could be shortened: something like "Egypt experienced a civil war fought by ..."?
  • Y
• A broader point, and one which will probably be annoyingly non-specific. A tricky aspect of writing articles is getting the prose, particularly within paragraphs, to flow naturally from one point to another. For example, in the middle of the second paragraph of the lead we have the sentence: Many tenant farmers fled during the unrest and several of Menches's colleagues went on strike, which made it difficult for him to continue his duties. The next sentence reads: He was arrested and accused of attempted murder in 118 BCE, though he was later acquitted. My initial thought when I get to the latter sentence is "does this mean that what we've discussed in the last few sentences happened before 118 BCE"? I then realise that we didn't include any dates for that earlier information, which leaves me a touch unsure. I move on to the next sentence: In 110 BCE, the position of village scribe was given to Petesouchos, who was likely Menches's brother or nephew. This is a little surprising, because it seems we've skipped over most of the period when Menches was active (we've gone from 118 to 110 BCE) over the course of these two sentences.
  • Y
    • I think what you've done solves the issue in this part. The chronology, in particular, is clearer now. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• temple in the city of Tebtunis in the 1st-century BCE – No hyphen.
  • Y
• These papyri were reused to wrap mummified crocodiles at a temple in the city of Tebtunis in the 1st-century BCE, which preserved them. – I think the phrase "which preserved them" might be stretching a little: what does "which" refer to and what does "them" refer to? At the moment, it sounds a little bit as though the 1st century BCE is the one doing the preserving.
  • Y
• Menches lived during the Ptolemaic period, after Egypt had been conquered by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE. – It's close to implied, but I think it'd be worth stating explicitly that this is when the Ptolemaic period started (as opposed to it simply happening some unspecified amount of time afterwards).
  • Y
• Egypt was ruled by Alexander's general Ptolemy I Soter (r. 323–282 BCE) and his descendants the Ptolemaic dynasty. – The meaning gets through, but "his descendants the Ptolemaic dynasty" is a bit compact, and I think calling the Ptolemaic dynasty "his descendants" might imply that Ptolemy I wasn't part of the dynasty.
  • Y
• During this period, the Ptolemies granted allotments of farm land – "farmland" is the more common form, I think. Cf. the OED, for example.
  • Y
• to Ptolemaic soldiers who settled in villages like Kerkeosiris. – By "like Kerkeosiris", do we mean "villages that were similar to Kerkeosiris" or "villages, of which Kerkeosiris was an example"? If it's the latter, I'd omit the mention of Kerkeosiris.
  • Y
• Another very small matter. The image captions Map of ancient Egypt (c. 3150 BCE to 30 BCE) with the location of Faiyum shown. and Mummified crocodile from ancient Egypt. aren't full sentences, so, per MOS:CAPFRAG, they shouldn't have full stops. In general, I'd also link relevant terms and people in the captions (eg. "Ptolemy VIII", "Cleopatra II and Cleopatra III", "Bernard P. Grenfell", etc.).
  • Y
• A scribal administration had existed in Egypt since the Old Kingdom – As a general piece of advice, classics reviewers (including myself) will tend to ask for dates for periods like this. Your average reader won't know the relevant dates, and MOS:NOFORCELINK recommends avoiding putting the reader in a position where they need to use a link to understand the sentence. Placing the dates in brackets would work.
  • Y
• A scribal administration had existed in Egypt since the Old Kingdom and this system was mostly unchanged in the Ptolemaic period. – I think we mean something like "by" the Ptolemaic period? Otherwise, it sounds a little bit like in the second part we're making the unrelated statement that the system was mostly unchanged during the Ptolemaic period. (Unless, of course, we do in fact mean that?)
  • Y
• responsible for managing the agricultural land in Egypt on behalf of the pharaoh. – Perhaps worth linking pharaoh? You could do the same in the lead.
  • Y
• The name Menches means "He who is perfect" in Egyptian. – Per WP:WORDSASWORDS, Menches should be italicised or put in quote marks (or similar). Per MOS:SINGLE, "He who is perfect" should probably be in single quotes, though there are reasonable exceptions to that guideline.
  • Y
• Menches held the office of village scribe (Ancient Greek: κομογραμματεύς, romanized: komogrammateus) – I'd consider introducing this a little more precisely: I think this could sound as though the meaning of komogrammateus is any one of "office of village scribe", "village scribe", or "scribe".
  • Y
• Regarding the "Early life and family" section: this isn't an uncommon quandary in articles about historical figures, but the section doesn't really cover his early life. In practice, it's a discussion of the historical and geographic context (with a bit of explanation of the sources, of lack thereof, for his life), his family, and his name. The second of these works naturally in an "Early life and family" section, but the other two don't really fit.
  • Y
    • I think what you've done with this one pretty much works. Having a "Historical background" subsection will always feel a touch odd in a "Biography" section, but it probably wouldn't be tenable to promote it to a separate section preceding "Biography", and the "Early life and family" heading is now a bit more representative of that part's contents. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
      • I decided to promote it to a separate section, it's short but different enough to stand on its own. Edward056686 (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• This one's more of a nitpick: Career as scribe is perhaps a tad redundant, given that we don't describe him as having a career in anything else. Would just "scribe" or "career" work, or perhaps something like "scribal activities"?
  • Y
• The collection of papyri commonly called the "archive of Menches" contain roughly 200 documents, – "contains", I think.
  • Y
• roughly 200 documents, most of which were produced during the tenure of Menches and are related to his scribal duties. – By "produced during the tenure of Menches", I'm assuming we mean that they were produced by Menches himself? It might be worth making this explicit. The phrase "are related to his scribal duties" sounds a bit as though the contents of the papyri discuss his scribal duties: is this what we mean?
  • Y
• It also includes documents from both the predecessor of Menches and Menches's successor Petesouchos. – There might be a slightly nicer phrasing here: I'd try to avoid using "Menches" twice. I also don't think we need to give Petesouchos's name, as we mentioned that above.
  • Y
• The majority of documents from the Menches archive were produced between 119 and 110 BCE, with a smaller number dating from before or after this period. – Honestly, it feels as though we've already imparted this information in the previous few sentences.
  • Y
• Cults centered around the worship of crocodiles were – Perhaps a link to Cult (religious practice)? The average modern reader will probably have a different understanding of the word "cult".
  • Y
• The reused papyri were recycled again after 91 BCE and used as cartonnage for mummies. – Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, I'd consider whether it's feasible to provide a brief explanation of the term "cartonnage".
  • Y
• were established in cities like Krokodilopolis, Kom Ombo and Thebes. – I'd go for "such as", which is a little more formal and precise; "like" can mean "similar to".
  • Y
• Tebtunis were mummified by the priests and buried in a necropolis – I'd include a link to necropolis.
  • Y
• I'm adding one further comment after the fact, covering a few matters of pedantry about the source formatting. Endashes should be used in ranges (eg. 1922-1930, 23 - 29 August), and using one of sentence or title case would be ideal. The general recommendation is to use the ISBN that is present in the book itself; for books published before 2007 (eg. Verhoogt 1992, Austin 1981), that will be a 7-digit ISBN, unless perhaps you're viewing a reprint. For older books (eg. Weaver 1937), using an OCLC can be an option if other identifiers aren't available. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Y Used original (10 digit) pre-2007 ISBNs and fixed the other things.

Overall, things seem to be in pretty good shape in the parts I've looked at. The few structural queries raised above are worth thinking about, so that the article logically flows from one topic into another. You could perhaps also do a scan of the prose for minor points similar to the ones I've raised here in the sections I haven't looked at. Other than that, my only query would be whether the article includes all of the important and relevant scholarship; it isn't my area and I haven't done any looking through sources, but the bibliography isn't jawdroppingly long, so I thought it worth asking. Best of luck at FAC; I'd be more than happy to have another look at there, where I can give you a fuller and more detailed review. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Michael, this is a really helpful review. I made the minor changes and will see if I can address some of the larger structural issues you raised. There isn't a tremendous amount of scholarship that presents new information about Menches the man, but I'll see if I can improve the bibliography. Edward056686 (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

No problem at all. I see that you've added a few more sources, and your changes in response to my suggestions look good (I've put in one follow-up regarding the lead). Although my comments should be taken with the caveat that Ptolemaic Egypt isn't quite my area, my impression of the article is a positive one, and I look forward to seeing it at FAC. Feel free to ping me or shoot me a talk page message when it turns up there. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)