User:Eggiee!/Amduat/Hush Muninn Peer Review

General info
Eggiee!
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing.
 * User:Eggiee!/Amduat - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Amduat - Wikipedia

Lead
Paragraph 1 is a good introduction to what the Amduat is, but a source should be included as there is a good amount of information given without much backing up the claims made.

Paragraph 2 could benefit from more overt references to the other divine beings that have a role in the Amduat, as the article stands Ra is shown as the sole participant of this journey which is not how the story goes.

Paragraph 3 is similar in that briefly mentioning the trials and monsters faced on the voyage would make the particulars of the story clearer for the reader when they get to the more in-depth discussion of the hours later in the article.

Paragraph 4 is great at establishing the history of the story within the timeline of Ancient Egypt, as well as at providing information regarding the locations and times this resource was compiled from. I do think any changes are necessary for this part.

Content of the Amduat
Paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 are solid, as they discuss important elements of the Amduat while still being relatively clear. The first half of paragraph 2 is similarly concise and clear, but the second half of this paragraph is written in a confusing way. A brief description of what a gateway is in relation to the Amduat, and the following sentence: "The 12 hours represent the 12 distinct regions of the Duat, while the 3 registers represent the physical locations within these regions" is worded in a way that suggests that the reader already knows what the regions of the Duat and the locations within them are.

While I know that The Hours section goes into detail on each aspect of my complaints in this section, but introducing topics without giving even a small description of them might leave the reader confused. Introducing the ideas in this section first and then expanding on them in the Hours section would help make the article more understandable.

Also replace "meaning" with "suggesting" in the sentence about the visual pun, as we are attempting to avoid definitive statements.

The Hours
A gallery of each hour of the Amduat would be beneficial, as visual aids would improve the reading experience. Other than that, I think this section is great. It gives each hour enough detail as to the events that unfolded within them without overloading the reader with too much information. Some minor editing to check for instances of objectivity, like how hour 10 is said to contain a comforting image, are necessary, but there is very little else to critique here.

Amduat-Style Tombs
While this section is well cited and articulated, I do not know if this section is entirely necessary. While the discussion of the Hours is the most important part of the article, and it justifiably takes up the most amount of space, this section is quite substantial as well. I think this section should be reduced in come capacity, maybe in its discussion of tombs aside from Thutmose III's.

I feel that Wikipedia articles should flow in such a way that the most important information comes at the end, as it would be the last thing the reader will absorb and thus, they would retain that information best. As a result of that, I feel that this section, should you decide to keep it in, should be moved above the discussion of the Hours.

Overall Thoughts

 * 1) Lead: The lead is an effective introduction to the article that would benefit from minor changes for the sake of clarity.
 * 2) Clarity of Article Structure: The article mostly makes sense in the order that it is presented in, other than my suggestion to move and parse down the section on Amduat-style tombs.
 * 3) Coverage Balance: The Hours section is the most important part of the article, and it is reasonably given the largest part of it. As I have said before, the Amduat-style tombs does not feel wholly relevant and might benefit from some consolidation of the ideas discussed in it.
 * 4) Content Neutrality: Other than the two instances I noted in the peer review, I feel as though the article does not take a definitive stance on any of the information given, which is good.
 * 5) Sources: See the references section for my thoughts on this.

Good work overall, as most of what I suggested was minor and it seems as though you have a good grasp of what you are discussing.