User:Itsnotironic/Obelisk/Obevo Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Itsnotironic


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Itsnotironic/Obelisk?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Obelisk

Evaluate the drafted changes
1.) Lead

One thing that might be important to add is a brief/general list of societies (i.e Assyrian, Nubian, Greek, Roman, ect.) that are known to have obelisk with the article elaborates on in a later section. I am 50/50 on my opinion of the inclusion for the section of Herodotus in the lead, and I think as I read more of the article it leans toward exclusion, especially considering how he is not mentioned again and it seems to be closer to argumentative or persuasive than not for Wikipedia's standards. Besides these points, the lead is succinct and effective in it's description of the topics.

2.) Clarity of Article Structure

The current structure of the article is good, and I think there can be a case made for both the original placement of ancient Egyptian objects in other areas in different time periods (i.e relevancy versus chronologic)

3.) Coverage Balance

While the majority of the article is balanced well, the section on Roman obelisks from ancient Egypt dwarfs many of the other sections. In consideration of the scope of the assignment, I think it would be better to reduce some of the information presented in this section rather than expand on other sections to meet the scale. It is also important to possibly separate or rename this section as much of the discussion of about persisting obelisks in much later periods of Roman history or about ones made by Rome. Specifically, while the discussion of Sixtus V and his efforts for a Roman obelisk may be relevant to the article, it is not entirely relevant to the section it is currently in and may be better either cut entirely or moved to a different section.

4.) Content Neutrality

One point that stands out to me is the statement "The pyramid and obelisk's significance have been previously overlooked", which seems to lean more argumentative than not, such as my understanding of the Herodotus example previously mentioned. Besides these points, not much else is presented as out right argumentative or persuasive to me, though some sections may benefit from the introduction of more perspectives. Specifically, to better expand on the discussion of the removal of obelisks from Egypt it might be beneficial to offer references to the reaction or opinions of Egyptians in regards to this removal or further building upon the explanation of why obelisks are often no longer in Egypt within the "Egypt" sub-section specifically.

5.) Sources

Currently, the sandbox lacks any formal references.