User:Nilenonsense/Khnum/Meegleague Peer Review

General info
Nilenonsense
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead section

-Looks really good! The only thing I would add/change would be making sure you get that citation for the prior info, and you've already made note of that :)

Clarity of structure

-Right now it feels a little rocky to me, especially towards the end under the "Other" section, but I think once you integrate the other parts like you wrote, it'll be good!

Coverage balance

-Looks pretty solid to me! I do feel like this can be a hard one to gauge without the context of the available information, but I think it's good!

Content Neutrality

-Again, difficult to assess without context, but from an outside perspective at the very least it seems reasonable. There's not any sort of argument being made for Khnum that sems contentious in any way

Sources

-The only thing I would add here is that I think you might need some more citations. Even if you've got citations for all of the info, it still feels like there chunks of uncited info (i.e. the second paragraph of the 'Temple at Esna' section). The sources themselves however look really good!

Overall

-This is a really good article! It's well written and I think all of the changes you've added are productive, informative, and reliable. Nice job!!