User:Jennawoolley1/sandbox

Article Edits:

In the first paragraph, I added a citation to https://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/egypt02-02enl.html because it was word for word almost from the same website I found and did not have a citation. The one listed did not connect to this website, so I felt I should add it.

At the end of paragraph 1, I added a sentence at the end to give more closure to the statement. Used this source : http://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/early-dynastic-period/index.html

Under the section, "the first pharoah" I added a line about the existence of kings before Menes that existed on the Palermo's Stone. Used this source: http://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/early-dynastic-period/index.html

 Article Evaluation 

Notes on relevancy:

The subheadings within the article correlated with the information underneath them well; I did not see any issues with relevancy.

Notes on neutrality:

For the most part the writers of this article did a good job of keeping opinions and biases away from the facts. However, in the third paragraph under the Cultural Evolution header, it states that "funeral practices for the peasants would have been the same as in predynastic times, but the rich demanded something more" and there is no citation in that entire paragraph to make this seem like a fact instead of an assumption.

In the following paragraph it states that "it seems certain that Egypt became unified as a cultural and economic domain long before its first king ascended to the throne in the lower Egyptian city of Memphis where the dynastic period did originate" There is no citation present for this either and it does seem like an assumption. The writer attempts to link this later in the paragraph with a statement about the prevalence of Gods having the power to unify people, which had a citation, however I do not feel like the previous statement belonged in the article since it was not based on anything other than their own reasoning. They are claiming that since the Gods existed before the unifying King, that they were already essentially unified, and I do not feel like this was the case; and even if that were true they did not provide evidence to support that original claim. All that they can prove with evidence is that there were common Gods during that time period.

Notes on credibility:

There seemed to be some slightly conflicting information, or perhaps it just needed to be expanded further. In the introduction paragraph it states that Egyptian hieroglyphs had been pioneered however at the end of the "cultural evolution" paragraph it only mentions symbols with phonograms and ideograms without it being stated whether or not that was the same thing as a hieroglyph. This is slightly confusing also because the first mentioning of the hieroglyph states that "little is known of the language they represent."

After taking a look at some of the references listed, I found that there seemed to be a good variety of sources even though a couple did use the same source. Some of the sources came from 1966; however I do not think this damages the credibility since it is not a topic that is likely to have any more recent advancements.

Misc. Notes:

The article had more detailed information than I remember from reading the textbook, for example the explanation of the symbols for the unification of North and South Egypt. I also noticed from the history that this article has had over 500 revisions made to it since its first creation.

The talk page was interesting because someone had made a lengthy comment about the issue I found with the assumptive statement about the unification of Egypt. Was nice to know someone else had the same opinion as I did.