User:Skibbitybop/Opening of the mouth ceremony/HammyJammies Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Skibbitybop


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Skibbitybop/Opening of the mouth ceremony


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Opening of the Mouth Ceremony

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.)

1. The Lead Section

Based on the organization of your draft, I am unsure what the order of your notes is in relation to the main article. Is it additional information for the lead at the beginning of your notes then leading to the Funerary Magic section? (It is just from an outsider's perspective, I know your notes make sense to you).

The current article lead could include some additional details about the ceremony. Maybe briefly why it was important to the ancient Egyptians to practice?

2. Clarity of Article Structure

Overall, the information in your notes clarifies missing details from the main article. Along with detailing the similarities and differences in interpretations of the ritual from the predynastic period to at least the New Kingdom.

Also do not forget to add hyperlinks to existing Wiki articles when you transfer your draft to the main article. (ex. when the article mentions the soul [khet, ba or ka] you could use this link in relationship to the part of the soul).

3. Coverage Balance

There could also be new sections added to discuss the tools used during the ceremony, depictions in texts, and the ceremony itself; to prevent the Funerary Magic section from being one ginormous section. At the bottom of the Funerary Magic section in the main article, the information about the terminology of "Opening of the Mouth" could become its own section at the beginning of the article. There is nothing that is off-topic in the draft, everything included is about the topic. The article does not try to convince the reader to accept a certain point of view, as details come from scholarly/expert understanding/interpretation of the ceremony.

4. Content Neutrality

The article takes a very neutral tone, by describing the process and importance of the ceremony.

5. Sources

The sources in this article are a mix of academic journals, and websites. They seem to be reputable sources of information. If possible, maybe add more images if they are available of the ceremony from early periods to contrast with the New Kingdom images already included. I would also fix the 4th citation since there seems to be a formatting problem.

Overall, you have a great draft that will tremendously improve the existing article!