Talk:Herodotus Machine

Intro Paragraph

The subject of the Wiki article is mentioned twice in a row. You can remove the bold Herodotus Machine, and just bold the same words in the sentence "The Herodotus Machine was a machine described by Herodotus..." I would perhaps also talk about the machine itself in the first sentence, and then talk about who Herodutus was, just for clarity in the article.

"Herodotus in Egypt"

This is a good section as it would introduce the background to the machine, but perhaps because it is the draft more information is lacking? I would definitely try and add more background info on the Herodotus and the machine if possible as it would tie in better to rest of the article and fill the information gap on this subject, since there's no wiki article for it other than this one.

"Herodotus' Machine'

While a description from Herodotus himself is a great addition to this article, for this section I would recommend if a picture of the machine would be here as well. I know the schematics of the actual machine do not exist, but perhaps information and diagrams on what scholars believe the machine looked like and functioned would be good as well. This would help the reader better visualize and understand what the machine was like and how it functioned.

"Machine's Feasibility"

Again, just like the section preceding this one, when talking about the "modern recreations" of the machine, a diagram if available would help drive the point of how the machine could theoretically have helped built the pyramids.

Rest of the Sections

I believe the rest of the sections here are just draft points and more information will be filled out, including the citations for the whole article.

Table of Contents

• References is good enough, no need for Works Cited as well.
• See Also, Further Reading, and External Links should be their own sections

Conor's review:

Hopefully this is helpful!

Paragraph 1:

I would remove the first bolded "Herodotus machine" and then instead, bold the next one. The repetition is unneeded. However, the rest of the intro section is very well done - just proof it for grammar.

Herodotus in Egypt

Some citation is needed for the two claims you make (modern scholars believe he traveled to Egypt, and how he's often thought to have embellished his history), but it is interesting nonetheless. Perhaps a bit more exposition on what Herodotus talked about to the egyptians would make the article more captivating.

Herodotus' Machine

Maybe a quick summary under the main heading would be nice, to lead you into the subsections (something like here, on the page for "Computer", in the history section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#History)

Design

+1

Machine's Feasibility

A diagram of some sort would be very helpful here. The content is very good though.

See also:

I assume this will be filled in.

References

This too, just flesh it out a bit. Great article overall!

Table of Contents

Works Cited isn't necessary; Wikipedia uses "references", which you already have! Conorao (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Justification from author for not citing certain claims:

I do not need to cite the claim that Herodotus embellished his writing. One would only need to read his Histories to see that he attributes quotes to people when he had no proof of anything of the like ever being said. The most famous of these embellishments perhaps being his depictions of the final moments of Leonidas at the battle of Thermopylae. Given none of the Greeks left to defend the path survived, there is no way to know about Leonidas' death, last words, or any other quotes.

Although less confident, I don't believe I need to cite the claim that scholars believer he did in fact travel to Egypt. That is not a debated fact in the life of Herodotus. Their are certainly some things historians dispute of Herodotus' life, but their is no real credible claims that he did not travel to Egypt. My point was mostly to high light and even take away suspicion from the reader that there was a possibility this is one of the things he embellished. I am more so just simply acknowledging there is no debate, not that there was a debate and we have a resolution. I am not really sure how you would even begin to cite the idea that no one has written about that. It is just an observation. To further support this point, the Herodotus wikipedia page also does not cite the same claim I made.

Reliability of Herodotus about Egypt

This passage: "scholars generally accept this particular account as Herodotus provides otherwise reasonable accounts of Egypt" is not very consistent with Herodotus#Egypt. Apokrif (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)