User:Laumoos/Ostracon/WesternGoblin Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Laumoos


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
I feel that the lead section that is already in place on the main article is pretty decent, it could probably stand to have some content about Egypt added since that is and is going to be such a large part of the content of the article when it's done. Maybe you could take out the last bit about the size of the inscriptions and add something about how they are very important in Egyptology.

The sections of the article are really big in some places and really small in others. I know that it's in progress and this is a history of Ancient Egypt class but maybe the biblical section could be expanded upon a little? 'Cause right now it's just a list of bullet points and a weirdly detailed paragraph about a super specific example of an Ostracon in biblical studies. If you don't want to do research into that (which is totally fair) I might cut it down to be some information taken from the main wiki article it links too. But yeah, I might expand the other sections of the article as much as you're expanding Deir el-Medina (which is really good btw). In terms of the article's flow/layout I might change the Ostracism section a little bit to make it make a little more sense as to that just being the origin of the word Ostracon rather than just a small section essentially about Ostracism. Otherwise the flow is logical and good.

Your language and the preexisting content on the article are pretty neutral, well done. There is one phrase I might think about changing if I were you and that's the "...found at Deir el-Medina provide a deeply compelling view into..." The "deeply compelling" is a little subjective. It's history and it is deeply compelling, but for language on a wikipedia article I might change that to be something like "provide insight" or something along those lines.

Sources. I think sources are where the most improvement could be done. The article itself has a lot of sources and I assume you're pulling from them as well but the section that you wrote only has three footnotes in it and one of them is broken (though I assume that's just a carry over from the broken one in the main article), I know it's a work in progress but I'd add more footnotes just to make sure that everything is well sourced and accurate.

Overall good improvements even though it's only partially done. Also apologies for the delay, I've had a rough week.