User:Madrugada11/Wilbour Papyrus/Epichippo Peer Review

General info
(Madrugada11)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Madrugada11/Wilbour Papyrus
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Wilbour Papyrus
 * Wilbour Papyrus

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.)

The Lead Section – will state the most important information, give good overview of the

'''rest of the article. It will be concise but avoid repeating the article content.'''


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

I am assuming since there were only changes to the Content and Purpose, there was no intentional change for the lead. 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.

Clarity of Article Structure – each important aspect of the article should have its own clear

and distinct section


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

presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?

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.

Coverage Balance – the article should be a balanced summary of existing resources without

a dominant viewpoint


 * 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?

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.


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

any significant viewpoints left out or missing?

Yes! No! 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.


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

point of view?

No! It seems very simplistic, and not over the top.

Content Neutrality – the article should not try to persuade the reader of a specific idea or

view


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

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.


 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea,"

"most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist

that y."

No!


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

"some people say..."

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 citing a source!


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

doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear

reflection of various aspects of a topic.

No!

Sources – article content should be supported by good and reliable 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?

Yes, but there could be an expansion of 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.

Yes, 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.


 * 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!

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!