User:Hazelsvest/Scarab (artifact)/Nilenonsense Peer Review

General info
Hazelsvest (My deepest apologies for the delay on reviewing this article. I hope this hasn't held you up too much and that the following review helps!)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Hazelsvest/Scarab (artifact)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Scarab (artifact)

Evaluate the drafted changes
The Lead Section

I like how you added that they are popular among collectors, I feel like this adds to the significance of the article. I'm also glad you kept the first sentence in the first paragraph because I feel like this does the same. I think the lead reflects the information in the article, especially since you added that sentence about how they play a role in funerary practices. Nothing is redundant.

Clarity of Article Structure

I think all the sections are well organized and I wouldn't have restructured them any other way. No need to change the structure.

Coverage Balance

For balance, the "Funerary Scarabs" section definitely holds the most weight, but I don't view this as a negative thing. I do wonder if there is anything you can add to the "Religious Significance" section, however. Maybe there are scarabs found in temples or something of the sort? Or maybe you could add in a brief sentence about how they were sometimes considered as a tool in helping in the afterlife (although I wouldn't go into too much depth in this section on that topic as it is well described in "Funerary Scarabs".) Or, were scarabs worshiped in any way that you can talk about in the article?

Content Neutrality

This article does a great job remaining neutral. There are no assumptions being made or biases portrayed. No claims are made, and information is stated clearly. There is nothing in the article that seems unnecessary and the scholarly perspectives are well-balanced. The article does not draw any conclusions. Well done.

Sources

You've done a good job adding in some sources for this article. Your sources are found on websites but they appear to be from a dictionary, Johns Hopkins, and an online journal, so I would consider them all credible!

However, I don't see any sources cited for the first paragraph of the "Description" section either in the original or in your sandbox. Is there a source you're able to cite here? This also goes for the rest of the section following "or porcelain" in the second paragraph. I also don't see any sources cited for the last paragraph in the "Religious Significance" section.

In the original article, there are also no sources for the "Commemorative Scarabs", "Funerary Scarabs", "Scarabs with Royal Names", and "Scarab Rings" sections. This would be quite a task to take on, but I think it will help the credibility of the overall article if you are able to find sources for this (Or actually, I see there are sources listed in the original article already, perhaps they are there! They just need references throughout the article so the reader knows exactly where the information is coming from. If you're able to, consider taking some time going through these sources and cross-referencing it with the information in the article. A good "control-F" search when you open up the sources should help!)

Other

Good rephrasing in the "Religious significance" section that made things more clear for the reader. I think you've done a good job fixing the grammar throughout the article as well. This was a fun read! Keep up the good work!