User:Obevo/Aten/Ancientwonder4253 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Obevo


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Obevo/Aten?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aten

Evaluate the drafted changes
The Lead Section:

The lead section for this article does a very good job at conveying the important information about the Aten and introducing it to the reader. It feels very neutral. It did leave me wondering, towards the end of the section, what kinds of efforts Horemheb took. This may be best addressed in a later section? Either way, the leading section is very good, there isn’t really anything of note that I would change or add in.

Clarity of Article Structure:

This article is very well sectioned and I feel that the order makes sense for the most part. You could consider moving the worship section up closer to religion and perhaps royal titulary could also be moved closer to those sections but I feel like either way this article flows well.

Coverage Balance:

There weren’t any sections in this article that stood out to me as attempting to be persuasive or not being neutral. The article is covered by a good amount of variety within the sources that show a decent amount of perspectives, creating a good balance. This section is a strong point for the article in my opinion. The religion section is quite a bit longer than the other sections but I feel that in this case that is okay since the Aten is a religious symbol.

Content Neutrality:

As said before, each of the sections of this article do a good job at staying neutral about the content, there is not a perspective that is being pushed. I couldn’t find any sections that try to make claims on behalf of a group of people and everything is well cited so any claims that are made about people can be traced back to reliable sources. Reading through it feels like information is being presented very matter-of-fact and thoroughly.

Sources:

This is a section that is still being worked on actively. So far, the sources seem to be very diverse and frequent, it is clear that the subjects are thoroughly researched. Overall Impressions:

I’m super impressed with how neutral, thorough and well-cited this article is! You clearly know what you’re doing and are confident in your editing. I’d say make the changes you have suggested in your to-do list and then you’re set to turn in a very strong article.