User:Randombioperson/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Haurun

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose something from Wikipedia's list of "C" articles that I knew nothing about so I wouldn't have apreconceived perception.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The introduction is simple and gets the main point across. It does not include a brief description on all the major sections.

Content

The article explains how due to how old the original texts are, some information is still unknown. Taking that into consideration, it seems like there is sufficient content to provide the reader with an understanding of the subject.

Tone

The tone appears to be neutral, pushing no type of agenda.

Sources

There is an extensive source list, and many are from within the last 10 years, which leads me to believe the article should have a higher score.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is well written. In terms of organization, I would change the section “Egyptian perception” as the last section because it is not directly about the god himself.

Images and Media

The two images are probably sufficient, although I would imagine there are plenty more pictures in Egyptian museums which could be used. Maybe adding some more art of the god.

Overall, I'm sure this article could increase its score by adding more information. To me, everything written abides by the standards that Wikipedia is looking for.