User:HammyJammies/Ammit/SpaceCanyon Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

HammyJammies


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


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
1.       The Lead Section – will state the most important information, give good overview of the rest of the article. It will be concise but avoid repeating the article content.

·      Do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?

Yes!

·      Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?

Yes it covers the most important information and allows for more specific facts to be covered later.

·      Does it give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?

The lead isn't very large it covers just enough for the reader to understand who/what Ammit was and where they are from. More information could be included but it would most likely be redundant as it is rendered in the rest of the article.2. Clarity of Article Structure – each important aspect of the article should have its own clear and distinct section

·      Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?

The sections are weighted well personally I find discussing Ammits iconography after the weighing of the heart disrupts the flow of more surface coverage about the deity before explaining their role in Egyptian mythology but their is nothing wrong with presenting the more notable topics beforehand.

3.       Coverage Balance – the article should be a balanced summary of existing resources without a dominant viewpoint

·      Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?

The two larger sections feel balanced with their importance to Ammit as a topic and any othersections are less important for understanding Ammit as an Egyptian god making their smaller size align with their importance to the topic.

·      Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?

I'm no expert on Ammit but the Article covers what I imagine is a rather widely accepted understanding and viewpoint on Ammit and their importance to Egyptian mythology.

·      Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

I would argue no, they present a narrative that explains Ammit's role in the Egyptian Afterlife along with their physical depictions that utilizes physical texts and depictions to justify the points put forward.

4.      Content Neutrality – the article should not try to persuade the reader of a specific idea or view

·      Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?

No, the information presented is reviewing several historians understandings of Ammit and their role in Egyptian Mythology so if they have a viewpoint it would be that of a modern historians understanding of Ammit.

·      Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."

Not that I noticed, good job.

·      Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."

Not that I noticed.

·      Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.

The Article focuses on information regarding Ammit and their role in Egyptian mythology it simply relays information in regards to Ammit herself and the role she plays in the Egyptian afterlife.

5.      Sources – article content should be supported by good and reliable sources

·      Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?

Most sources are from Journals or textbooks and most if not all claims are supported through references.

·      Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.

No, the article does a good job of distributing information between sources.

·      Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!

Under Iconography within the edit it contains no references in the first paragraph. However, within the original article the information is linked to references I'd double check these statements still align with the references from the original article if you intend to add them back into your edit but this paragraph's claims still need to be supported by a reference or two. The same goes with Nomenclature and the lead, you've edited information on them but haven't included the references from the original article, so I recommend just double checking if your edits align with the sources and or finding new ones that back your claims.

Some closing remarks your lead is good and covers what it needs to but I recommend trying to expand it a little as it feels disproportionate to the body of your article when this is where readers should get the key information at a quick glance.

I noticed the bulk of your entry was syntax/grammar correction along with including new info/fixing links etc. If you want to you could add more to the table containing information about Ammit maybe chief site of worship in Egypt.

Overall a good article with great edits that expand the information present and make for an easier read. I'd say your biggest hiccup is just rechecking references from the old article now that you've made edits to the information it presented and double checking if some of these sources are now redundant or un-needed.