User talk:AnonymousUsername934/Ancient Egyptian royal ships

I think the lead section provides a good overview of why the ships were made, but they don't really discuss why they were necessarily important. It is written on the page, "The history and function of the ships are not precisely known." So, it provides clarity in the fact that there isn't really any clarity about the use besides it being used for funerary/solar barges. Was there any sources on why people may not know the function of these boats? I believe that it gives a good overview that doesn't go into too much detail, as the article itself is VERY detailed with the types of ships being created during the time. I do think it should be noted that there are many types of these boats because it expands a lot on the variation of the ships for a bulk of the article. It's hard to tell with this article because there are so many different components that work off of each other. I think there is a lot of great information in regards to the types of ships, so it's very well rounded in that way because it goes into tedious detail about the types of ships that were found in certain places. I think it would be nice if there was a section added that briefly notes (before going into the ships details) the different locations before going into the types of ships because that's where I got confused in the organization. I know that there are many subsections to the context of these boats, but could you maybe expand upon that in your article? I really like the table that compares the solar ships, and I think it should be kept because it's a really good table to have. Epichippo (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Clarity of Article Structure

I think the way the person re-organized things were great, however, as I mentioned previously, I think it would be great if there could be a small section right before to explain that the article will be split up between the different locations of where these boats are found. I think it might also be nice to add a sentence before going into the boats, about the significance of the location it was found out. I think adding the comparative structure after describing the boats would also be ideal, since you just spoke about it, and then people could look at the comparisons at the end. I also think what got me slightly confused while reading was the heading indentation/bolded (the Giza Necropolis part specifically). I expected there to be a new section, but it was still in the same section. I'm not sure how that could be fixed because I understand why that was chosen to attempt to split it up, but maybe there could be a distinct new section, and could preface it was still found out at the same location as the section above. What other ways have you thought about splitting up those sections? Epichippo (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Coverage Balance

I think this is the strongest part of the article. As I mentioned previously, it goes into great detail about the boats. I think all of the sections added are important to the topic because those are the boats that were found during this time that contribute to the overall article/word. I think it is very straightforward and stays on topic very well. I don't necessarily think there are viewpoints left out. The article is very Egyptian source based, which makes sense, since they come from Egypt. No, it is very neutral and provides substantial information on boats. It is also very clear about what information there is on the topic, and also the lack of evidence too, which is nice. Epichippo (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Content Neutrality

I don't think I could guess the perspective, the only thing I would think, is that someone who studies Egyptian history would write this. I don't think the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups/people or focus too much on negative or positive information. In terms of other neutrality, are there more non-Egyptian sources you could reference?

Epichippo (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources

I think for the most part, the sources themselves are pretty reliable. There's a good mix of journals, official government websites, and some mixes of self-published authors, but the bulk is from official, vetted sources. I also liked all the photos that were used because they seemed very relevant to the topic. Throughout the article, the author does a great job of sparsing out the sources. It seems that they rarely used the same sources to expand upon the different topics. I will say, the original article has the same amount of sources as the edited article-- which might be a mindful thing to pay attention. It might be good to add more sources to expand on the reach of the article itself. There are definitely a good chunk of spots that I think could use references, especially the first half of the article. It is a very pithy article, and with the boats statistics, there is a lot of good source coverage for that, but there are some holes. Some of them being the actual definition of the word, and some of the sections, Khafre solar ships -Northern and Southern day/night boats, Abu Gorab, Lisht, and Abusir. In terms of these sections, were you able to find information on them? If not, maybe you could reveal that there are no sources on these, or put a citation needed. Epichippo (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)