User:Ancientwonder4253/Atum/Obevo Peer Review

General info
Whose work are you reviewing?Ancientwonder4253

Link to draft you're reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ancientwonder4253/Atum?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) Atum

Evaluate the drafted changes
1.) Lead Editor did not include a lead section in the sandbox submission. If this means they are not making changes/are keeping the unedited lead I think it a good choice as the current one is effective. One of the only possible changes I can think of making is the addition of important dates or periods within ancient Egyptian history that are connected to Atun or physical places the god is connected to, such as dynastic periods where he seemed to hold greater prevalence or his major cult centers and their periods of high influence or activity. These would be brief, and do more to connect to all parts of the article.

2.) Clarity of Article Structure I think the organization of the article is good, and I don't think there is a 'better' or more effective way to organize the structure with the current sections.

3.) Coverage Balance I think the coverage of topics within the article is relatively balanced, though the major exception would likely be the "Worship" section. Atum would have been worshiped in a variety of different ways throughout ancient Egyptian history, and I think it would be more beneficial to talk about more examples. For example, there is a mention of the 12th dynasty, but does not place more specific dynastic dates in regarding to Atum being overshadowed by Re or Aten in the 18th dynasty. This would also be a great section to include images of Atum, such as tomb inscriptions of even the Temple of Ra-Atum obelisk mentioned.

4.) Content Neutrality There is nothing in the article that jumps out as explicitly breaking neutrality to me, and there does not seem to be any aspects that feel like active persuasion. The only minor point would probalply be switching "One text debates" from the end of the first paragraph of the "Role" section to one that mentions the direct source or article.

5.) Sources From my understanding of the references on the original article, many seem to be omitted from the sandbox and instead skewer heavily to two sources provided by the editor. I think the Wilkinson source is valuable (as I also use it) and the Nicolas seems to also be peer-reviewed. I think it would be important to bring in a few more sources, or include the original sources from the articles to show a better array of opinions regarding this topic. It also might be helpful to make each citation consistent with formatting, though Wiki is not the best with auto-generated citations. It seems the editor has a good grasp of what needs to be cited still with their inclusion of "citation needed" in some spots, though there are a few points that are uncited in their sandbox that should be. One specific example is their reference to the Book of the Dead in the third paragraph in the "Role" section. A more personal opinion is that it would also be beneficial to connect more of the phrases within the article to other Wikipedia articles, such as reliquaries or anthropomorphic, to name a few. But that is also more personal that the more the better.