> What could possibly be seen as sensationalist here?
I wrote "somewhat" on purpose, meaning something in the middle between "really sensationalistic" and "quite interesting". The sensationalist aspect of the article is that it gives the uninformed reader the impression that it is something like the find of the year, which it really isn't. Yes, it is a nice find and well-preserved, but in the end, everything is rare if one only narrows down the area enough. Instead, the author should have informed the reader that bronze swords are often quite well-preserved and why this is the case, and that "rare" does not mean "one or two others", but "about 200 others of this specific type and thousands of others considering all types".
I wrote "somewhat" on purpose, meaning something in the middle between "really sensationalistic" and "quite interesting". The sensationalist aspect of the article is that it gives the uninformed reader the impression that it is something like the find of the year, which it really isn't. Yes, it is a nice find and well-preserved, but in the end, everything is rare if one only narrows down the area enough. Instead, the author should have informed the reader that bronze swords are often quite well-preserved and why this is the case, and that "rare" does not mean "one or two others", but "about 200 others of this specific type and thousands of others considering all types".