User:AnonymousUsername934/Ancient Egyptian royal ships/Epichippo 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:
 * Ancient Egyptian royal ships:

Evaluate the drafted changes
The Lead Section


 * Do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?

I think the lead section provides a good overview of why the ships were made, but they don't really discuss why they were necessarily important. It is written on the page, "The history and function of the ships are not precisely known." So, it provides clarity in the fact that there isn't really any clarity about the use besides it being used for funerary/solar barges.


 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the

most important information?

I believe that it gives a good overview that doesn't go into too much detail, as the article itself is VERY detailed with the types of ships being created during the time. I do think it should be noted that there are many types of these boats because it expands a lot on the variation of the ships for a bulk of the article.


 * Does it give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing?

Is anything redundant?

It's hard to tell with this article because there are so many different components that work off of each other. I think there is a lot of great information in regards to the types of ships, so it's very well rounded in that way because it goes into tedious detail about the types of ships that were found in certain places. I think it would be nice if there was a section added that briefly notes (before going into the ships details) the different locations before going into the types of ships because that's where I got confused in the organization. I really like the table that compares the solar ships, and I think it should be kept because it's a really good table to have.

Clarity of Article Structure


 * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense

presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?

I think the way the person re-organized things were great, however, as I mentioned previously, I think it would be great if there could be a small section right before to explain that the article will be split up between the different locations of where these boats are found. I think it might also be nice to add a sentence before going into the boats, about the significance of the location it was found out. I think adding the comparative structure after describing the boats would also be ideal, since you just spoke about it, and then people could look at the comparisons at the end. I also think what got me slightly confused while reading was the heading indentation/bolded. I expected there to be a new section, but it was still in the same section. I'm not sure how that could be fixed because I understand why that was chosen to attempt to split it up, but maybe there could be a distinct new section, and could preface it was still found out at the same location as the section above.

Coverage Balance


 * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there

sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?

Yes, I think this is the strongest part of the article. As I mentioned previously, it goes into great detail about the boats. I think all of the sections added are important to the topic because those are the boats that were found during this time that contribute to the overall article/word. I think it is very straightforward and stays on topic very well.


 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are

any significant viewpoints left out or missing?

I don't necessarily think there are viewpoints left out. The article is very Egyptian source based, which makes sense, since they come from Egypt.


 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular

point of view?

No, it is very neutral and provides substantial information on boats. It is also very clear about what information there is on the topic, and also the lack of evidence too, which is nice.

Content Neutrality


 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?

I don't think I could guess the perspective, the only thing I would think, is that someone who studies Egyptian history would write this.


 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral?

Because this article is specifically on boats, it's nice because there is a neutrality about the topic and even the origin of its creation.


 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people?

No.


 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information?

No.

Sources


 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and

journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?

I think for the most part, the sources themselves are pretty reliable. There's a good mix of journals, official government websites, and some mixes of self-published authors, but the bulk is from official, vetted sources.


 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an

unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.

Throughout the article, the author does a great job of sparsing out the sources. It seems that they rarely used the same sources to expand upon the different topics. I will say, the original article has the same amount of sources as the edited article-- which might be a mindful thing to pay attention. It might be good to add more sources to expand on the reach of the article itself.


 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find

stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's

presented accurately!

There are definitely a good chunk of spots that I think could use references, especially the first half of the article. It is a very pithy article, and with the boats statistics, there is a lot of good source coverage for that, but there are some holes. Some of them being the actual definition of the word, and some of the sections, Khafre solar ships -Northern and Southern day/night boats, Abu Gorab, Lisht, and Abusir.