User:AnonymousUsername934/Ancient Egyptian royal ships/CabbageP Peer Review

General info
AnonymousUsername934
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:AnonymousUsername934/Ancient Egyptian royal ships
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Ancient Egyptian royal ships:

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead


 * It doesn't look like much was changed in the lead (totally fine) but maybe you could expand on the Pyramid Texts reference and give some examples? This could even be its own section...
 * I think you could update the lead to reflect the contents of the entire article a bit more. Most of the article covers the Royals and their several boats/boat pits and the lead tries to give a brief importance of the ships. There should be some sort of connection between the two, whether that means adding a section to expand on the brief history and function of the ships or adding something about the rulers to the lead. (If that makes sense)

Clarity of Article Structure


 * To answer your question: Yes I think you should keep the comparative table but I think it would better fit at the bottom of the article after all of the other sections. That way the table acts as a recap of the previously read sections AND then the ships can be compared using the table.
 * You have lots of headings and subheadings within your sections which is great for organization and is helpful for the reader.
 * I personally did not find any spelling mistakes or gramatical errors.

Content


 * Great addition of more ships within the Giza Necropolis section plus the expansion of the Khafre Solar ships section! Maybe a picture would be helpful for this section.
 * In both the "Hetepheres Solar Ship" and "Ka Solar Ship" sections, I'm not sure you need to write "there is no more data at present", you could just put where it was found and leave it at that.
 * Sections that you rewrote, flow well and keep the article focused. Really good expansion of the Senusret Solar Ship section.
 * I'm a bit confused about one of the Saqqara subsections: the section was renamed in your draft "North Saqqara" from "Mastabas" but the content beneath it remains the same.
 * Are you planning on keeping the "Other ancient Egyptian Ships" section from the original article?

Content Neutrality


 * To me it seems about as neutral as you can get about boats, which is great for you! I didn't find any claims or specific instances of positive/negative associations, very cut and dry info (good).

Sources


 * You have a lot of sources (40 to be exact) which is great and the article uses all of them which is also great.
 * Sources seem scholarly and reliable.
 * I don't see any over use of one or two sources which mean for a balanced article.
 * Could use more citations in the "Senusret Solar Ship Section" - one citation is used throughout the whole section.
 * Could use citations in the "Neferirkare Solar Ship" and the "Niuserre Solar Ship" sections - no citations used

Overall


 * Overall your contributions to the article and your draft are great! You combined a lot of your new additions into the existing sections seemlessly and have added a lot of important information to the article. I think with a with a minor organizational change and a few more citations this is well on its way to being a great wikipedia article. Good work :)