User:CabbageP/Stone quarries of ancient Egypt/AnonymousUsername934 Peer Review

General info
CabbageP
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:CabbageP/Stone quarries of ancient Egypt - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Stone quarries of ancient Egypt - Wikipedia

Lead
The lead doesn't seem like it was too updated, which I think is totally okay because the lead in the og was already pretty good. It doesn't seem like there would be much more to add in the lead except clarity, which I already think was done pretty well. Though, I do think that the last sentence in the lead, "This article details some of the most important ancient quarry sites in Egypt." could maybe be taken out. It seems kinda redundant.

Content

I think that the content that was added was pretty good. I think that there could be more, but I think that from the comments that seems like it's already in the works. I think that the added content definitely just adds more clarity to the overall article and makes it feel more researched/better overall. I think that the new sections that were added (Umm es-Sawan and Tura-Masara) are super good. Though, I am curious why the other sections that were in the og article were removed? I think that expanding on some sections like Silsileh and Wadi Hammamat would add more to the article in general. The sources all checked out pretty well. All of the content was related to the topic and expanded on it very well. The article doesn't trap itself into any bias and seems as informational as possible.

Tone and Balance

All of the content was related to the topic and expanded on it very well. The article doesn't trap itself into any bias and seems as informational as possible! I don't think that I could even begin to think up a bias that this article might have, so that is definitely super good.

Sources and References

The sources are super awesome. They are all very scholarly and reliable. Though, there aren't as many sources as there maybe should be. I think finding some more sources could definitely be beneficial. If i was picky, I would say that there are a couple of places that could use references:

"Eighty percent of the ancient sites are located in the Nile valley; some of them have disappeared under the waters of Lake Nasser and some others were lost due to modern mining activity[citation needed]."

"In June 2006, the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) of Egypt established a new department for conservation of ancient quarries and mines in Egypt."

"The location of the site, known to the Romans as Mons Porphyrites, was lost for many centuries until rediscovered in the 19th century. It is the only source of imperial porphyry in the world."

Organization

I didn't see any spelling errors or anything like that in the article. It's all pretty clear too! It's mentioned at the top that the article is going to be organized by area, and I think that that's a super good idea.

Images and Media

The article has some good images. If images could be added in the sections Widan el-Faras and Umm es-Sawan, I think that that would be super awesome, but that may be a hard ask.

Overall Impressions

I think that the rough draft is good! It definitely keeps a good amount of stuff from the original article, but organizes it in a better way. I like the added sections and I think that they added a lot to the article. I am curious as to why the other sections were removed though. Overall, it's definitely an improvement over the original article. AnonymousUsername934 (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)