User talk:Knl18/sandbox

Peer Review by Mallory
, I think that you have done amazing work so far and have a variety of good contributions to the article. All of your sources seem to be cited properly and the links work. However, source 5, does not seem to be the most reliable judging by the format of the webpage. I don't remember what the class decided for the legitimacy of ".org" webpages. Overall, for your article, I think that there should be better consistency in the use of tenses as sometimes you flip between past and present tense. Also, there are several opportunities to add more links to other Wikipedia pages throughout your additions. Below I have broken down my peer review by sections.

Funerary Rituals

 * The phrase "most coherent" in the opening line may be construed as an opinion
 * "Due to prevention of the abuse of the corpse" could be reworded to "to prevent the abuse of the corpse"
 * When referring to someone drowning it could be "In the case that someone drowned or was attacked..."

Embalming

 * I'm not sure how you plan to order it when you add it to the Wikipedia page, but it may be helpful to put embalming before Funeary Rituals since you mention embalming in the first paragraph of Funerary Rituals.
 * I would get rid of "Much like today's funeral homes" as it doesn't read as encyclopedic and implies that funeral homes across the world are similar

Mummification

 * Did they think the heart did the thinking or did they believe that it did? It's a minor word change but would speak to whether it was knowledge/fact at the time or if it had religious underpinnings.
 * Should add links to the four gods if they have Wikipedia pages
 * It may be helpful to say in the beginning of the section that mummification existed as three options based on expensiveness. This could be done by introducing the first one as the "the first, most common and most expensive option." Then, the other two and "second" and "last."
 * Overall, you have great additions to this section and what you added flows seamlessly with what is on the existing page.

Damnation

 * Your additions are clear, simple, and easy to understand. They are worded in an encyclopedic manner. Love it!

Judgement

 * If it doesn't infringe on copyrights, adding the picture you described would be extremely beneficial to the article.

I apologize if this seems like a lot. I think that you are off to a great start. While some of these things are nit-picky, I think the biggest thing would be just to go through your article and make the verbs the same tense - probably past tense. Good luck with your article! maljohns (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your feedback! Your critiques are super helpful and I plan to utilize some of your rewordings. Also, I will go through my writing and make my tenses more consistent. As for that questionable source, I will check on it with Professor Garcia. Thanks again and good luck with your article! Knl18 (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)