User talk:Madrugada11/Wilbour Papyrus/Epichippo Peer Review

Lead Section
I am assuming since there were only changes to the Content and Purpose, there was no intentional change for the lead, and you are keeping the original article. 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. Epichippo (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Clarity of Article Structure
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. Epichippo (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Coverage Balance
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. 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. The overall coverage balance seems very simplistic and not over the top, which is nice. Epichippo (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Content Neutrality
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. In terms of other things, 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 you can find a reference, and cite the source! Epichippo (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)