User:Sarahc299/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Evaluating content


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything in this article is relevant to the topic. There is nothing that distracted me.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Nothing seems out of date, but it all seems old. Recent information could be added.
 * What else could be improved? An update about what the band is doing now could be added because it is currently non-existent.

Evaluating tone


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Everything seems neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I feel like this page is underrepresented because there is not much information on the page. At all.

Evaluating sources


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Yes the links do work and they do support the claims.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Yes. Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Checking the talk page

Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.

-
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Yes, someone asked how to correctly write the name of a song if it's a remix.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We haven't talked about it in class.

Evaluating my Wiki page


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything in this article is relevant to the topic. There is a lot of debate on the talk page and things on the actual page are always changing. This was a bit distracting.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?Everything is about ancient Egypt, so no.
 * What else could be improved? Additional queering could be added.

Evaluating tone


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Everything seems neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I feel like this page is underrepresented because in addition to further queering the page, more history could be added as well.

Evaluating sources


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Yes the links do work and they do support the claims.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Yes. Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Checking the talk page

Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is a lot of back and fourth on the talk page that has been going on for years.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is highly rated and featured.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? There is no mention of anything queer.

- Actual Wiki Page Contributions:::

Finally, according to Egyptian afterlife beliefs, human souls pass into the divine realm after death. The Egyptians therefore believed that in death they would exist on the same level as the gods and fully understand their mysterious nature. Additionally, the transition into the afterlife was one where female and male genders could be transformed. Coffins were used as a way of divinizing the dead.