User:Meegleague/Bes/Nilenonsense Peer Review

General info
Meegleague
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Bes
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Bes

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Hey! My sincerest apologies for not turning this in on Friday. I've had a lot going on, but that is not an excuse. I hope this helps and hasn't delayed you too much!)

The Lead Section

I definitely understand the importance of the topic so I appreciate the minimal changes you made. I think the mention of the more-recently found artifacts adds to this. The grammatical changes you made were necessary and it seems much more fluent now. My only note here is to make sure the citations come after the period (except in sections where the citation appears mid-sentence)- this goes for throughout the whole article as well. As a reader, I also am curious if there are scholars that contest Donald Mackenzie, or if this is considered to be common archaeological thought- maybe if this is an accepted theory than there is a way to convey that? Or if it isn't, I would add something that discusses other theories.

Clarity of Article Structure

I think the order flows nicely into each section with priority to the topic. I like that you added the "Figurines" header to the "Iconography" section and how you added the other sections, I think this added a new dimension and each section is distinct in its own.

Coverage Balance

When it comes to length, "Iconography" definitely holds the most weight with "Worship" closely following. If you are interested in expanding the other sections, maybe the "Origin" section can dive more into how he is a household deity, or explain more about the reasoning of him being a deity of childbirth etc, dive into when the iconography began to change, or explain more about exactly where in Upper Egypt he originates. As for significant viewpoints, there's definitely mention of interpretations of scholarly thought, but I think you've done a nice job of phrasing these as "possibilities" instead of certain fact. I only wonder, as mentioned earlier, what is "common thought" and what is viewpoints- maybe this can be made more clear. You don't seem to draw any conclusions.

I think you added a lot of quality content to this article. The addition of the potential hieroglyphics meaning under the "Origin" section is expansive. I also like that you added the times of worship in that section.

In the "Iconography" section, the fact about Bes originally looking like a lion is a repeated fact from the "Origin" story. You don't necessarily have to remove this, but maybe it can be rephrased? Also, I wouldn't worry too much about finding images for "tattoos" because I think it is understandable to the reader that there won't be images of this. I also really enjoyed all the information you added under the "Jugs" header. I think this adds a new layer to the article as you mention the foreign influences and

Content Neutrality

You don't have any outstanding biases or perspective. You do a good job citing the sources and the names of people who believe certain things. The only portion that comes to mind is under the "Jugs" header, you use the word "suggests" a lot, so I wonder if it can be made clear exactly how common this idea is. But otherwise, no claims are made so I think you've done a great job remaining neutral.

Sources

Everything is nicely cited. I'm glad you were able to find the citations of the ones missing in the original article without having to remove or edit the information much.

Your sources seem fairly credible. Most appear to be from journals. Information is well-cited. I would maybe add that the Archaeology Magazine source comes from the Archaeological Institute of America to make it seem more credible because that was the only one that stood out to me as odd before exploring further.

Other

Being nitpicky, this sentence, under the "Jugs" sentence: "This, along with other objects likely of West Asian origin indicates that the occupant likely maintained contact with Palestine, and as such the West Asian style Bes jug may have been manufactured there." could maybe be rephrased for clarity. (Maybe: "The presence of this item, along with other objects likely originating from West Asia, suggests that the occupant likely maintained contact with Palestine, implying that the West Asian style Bes jug may have been manufactured there.")

This article was really well done! You've clearly done some great research here and made some tasteful edits to the original article that both flesh it out and make everything more clear. I enjoyed reading this and was able to learn a few new things from it. Keep at it, you don't really have far to go before this is a completed article in my book! Nicely done!