User talk:Madrugada11/Wilbour Papyrus/Epichippo Peer Review: Difference between revisions
→Content Neutrality: new section |
→Sources: new section |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
The only thing I would guess is an Egyptologist would write this, only because it talks about the importance it's had on Egyptian history, but I don't think that's because of a lack of content neutrality. In terms of other things, There are some points where this happens, for example, "This has allowed for Egyptologists to estimate that 13 to 18 percent of all of Ancient Egypt's farmland during the Ramesside Period was held by temples." But, I think as long as there is a reference put there, it should be fine. Have you thought about putting a reference there, or maybe saying who said it has 'allowed them to...'? Similar to the taxation part as well, I am wondering who said what you are claiming. But, I think that could be solved when you can find a reference, and cite the source! [[User:Epichippo|Epichippo]] ([[User talk:Epichippo|talk]]) 00:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC) |
The only thing I would guess is an Egyptologist would write this, only because it talks about the importance it's had on Egyptian history, but I don't think that's because of a lack of content neutrality. In terms of other things, There are some points where this happens, for example, "This has allowed for Egyptologists to estimate that 13 to 18 percent of all of Ancient Egypt's farmland during the Ramesside Period was held by temples." But, I think as long as there is a reference put there, it should be fine. Have you thought about putting a reference there, or maybe saying who said it has 'allowed them to...'? Similar to the taxation part as well, I am wondering who said what you are claiming. But, I think that could be solved when you can find a reference, and cite the source! [[User:Epichippo|Epichippo]] ([[User talk:Epichippo|talk]]) 00:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC) |
||
== Sources == |
|||
The source seem to be reliable, but there could be an expansion of sources. There are only two sources, which stem from the same website. It is a museum, but the original article has more sources than what was changed. I think there could be an expansion of sources, especially with the content and purpose. As mentioned previously, there are very little source references in the content and purpose, which takes up the bulk of the article. Have you been able to find sources on this topic outside of the Brooklyn museum? I think having more eclectic sources would bolster this article, because there is very valuable information when it comes to the things you added! However, it would be even bolstered even more if there are sources to back it up. [[User:Epichippo|Epichippo]] ([[User talk:Epichippo|talk]]) 00:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 00:57, 4 March 2024
Lead Section[edit]
I am assuming since there were only changes to the Content and Purpose, there was no intentional change for the lead, and you are keeping the original article. Reading the original article, I do think maybe one thing could be expanded upon more. Would you consider writing a sentence or two that expands on the importance of the wilbour papyrus itself? Either than that, I don't think there's anything else that should be changed, it seems that it's all very straight to the point. Epichippo (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Clarity of Article Structure[edit]
I do believe the sections are organized well, I especially like how the Content & Purpose section is curated with the land and taxation/rent. I don't think anything should be changed in this aspect. Because there is not much information on this paper, and is relatively self-explanatory, I think it's very cut and dry. Epichippo (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Coverage Balance[edit]
I like how you added more onto the content and purpose because it expands upon the actual importance of the paper. I don't think anything felt out of place and I liked the explanation of the small land plots, especially. It seems that it also has a pretty neutral viewpoint and doesn't seem to sway the reader in any specific way. It's just describing what the paper does, and what Egyptologists have been able to do with it. The overall coverage balance seems very simplistic and not over the top, which is nice. Epichippo (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Content Neutrality[edit]
The only thing I would guess is an Egyptologist would write this, only because it talks about the importance it's had on Egyptian history, but I don't think that's because of a lack of content neutrality. In terms of other things, There are some points where this happens, for example, "This has allowed for Egyptologists to estimate that 13 to 18 percent of all of Ancient Egypt's farmland during the Ramesside Period was held by temples." But, I think as long as there is a reference put there, it should be fine. Have you thought about putting a reference there, or maybe saying who said it has 'allowed them to...'? Similar to the taxation part as well, I am wondering who said what you are claiming. But, I think that could be solved when you can find a reference, and cite the source! Epichippo (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Sources[edit]
The source seem to be reliable, but there could be an expansion of sources. There are only two sources, which stem from the same website. It is a museum, but the original article has more sources than what was changed. I think there could be an expansion of sources, especially with the content and purpose. As mentioned previously, there are very little source references in the content and purpose, which takes up the bulk of the article. Have you been able to find sources on this topic outside of the Brooklyn museum? I think having more eclectic sources would bolster this article, because there is very valuable information when it comes to the things you added! However, it would be even bolstered even more if there are sources to back it up. Epichippo (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)