User:A Small Rat/Serapeum of Saqqara/CabbageP Peer Review

General info
A Small Rat
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:A Small Rat/Serapeum of Saqqara
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Serapeum of Saqqara

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead


 * I see that you didn't add much to the lead section but some of that info could use some citations as there don't seem to be many.

Contents


 * Good additions to the "History" section. Added portions are well writen, cited, and contribute to the overal contents of the article.
 * Good additions and expasion to the "Rediscovery and Exploration" section.
 * Could anything be added to the "Rituals" section? Expanding on the four events that mark the career of an Apis, perhaps making each of the four their own section?
 * Are there any pictures or visuals you can add to the article?

Clarity of Article Structure


 * I think the article is organized efficiently and flows well as it's read. Potentially the "History" and "Ritual" sections could swao places to highlight the importance of the rituals more.
 * The current published article on Serapeum has a weird break between the lead and the following section because of photos. When your additions are added to the article, maybe you could rearrange the photos to better utalize the page space.

Coverage Balance and Content Neutrality


 * The bulk of the article is taken up by the "History" section, I think the "Rituals" section could be expanded on to balance the article contents a bit more.
 * The article doesn't draw conclusions or try to argue one point of view.
 * A neutral perspective is held throughout the article, no apparent positive/negative associations or claims. Information added is neither negative nor positive.

Sources


 * The sources you've added to the article are scholarly and reliable which make them great sources to use.
 * Maybe you could find a couple more sources? More sources the better (probably)
 * It seems that a lot of your added statements are attributed to one of your sources more than the others (britanica). This may lead to an unbalanced article.
 * As prevously stated, the lead section could use more citations.

Overall


 * Overall your contributions to the article are well written and are important additions to the article. Expanding further on these topics and a couple minor organizational changes could make your wikipedia contribution even better. Great work on your draft :)