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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Skibbitybop


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


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Opening of the mouth ceremony

Evaluate the drafted changes
Quick note: because your draft is mostly just notes on what you hope to change in the article I'll try and make this review as helpful as I can despite it's restraints and I'll include some notes that might not fit into the review itself at the end.

1.       The Lead Section – will state the most important information, give good overview of the rest of the article. It will be concise but avoid repeating the article content.

·      Do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?

The lead feels lacking at least within the original article it needs a lot of love as it describes a singular tool used that could be placed in a section dedicated to tools or how the ceremony is completed. Furthermore, you could add a little more on the significance of the ceremony beyond just that it was a funerary text, but your notes have a lot of good info to do this with so good luck!

·      Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?

No most of my previous remarks cover what I think could be improved about the lead.

·      Does it give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?

there is really only one section of the article in it's current form so it's hard to say yes or no but If the article after editing will include both a lead and examination of funerary magic in the ritual only then it isn't bad but if you add a section say on tools I recommend adding a blurb such as "the ceremony utilized several ritual tools" to the lead as an example, this would help lead the reader to the tools section.

2.      Clarity of Article Structure – each important aspect of the article should have its own clear and distinct section

·      Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?

The article only has the lead and one other section perhaps it could use with splitting the info into other sections such as the funerary texts themselves and the ritual itself etc.

3.      Coverage Balance – the article should be a balanced summary of existing resources without a dominant viewpoint

·      Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?

See above about including more sections currently the one large section is a little heavy and could be separated to diversify the article

·      Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?

I would argue the article and your notes do a good job of presenting the ceremony and some surrounding literature. You mentioned in your notes that you're looking for more texts and that would really sure up this section of the review just having multiple sources that confirm the rituals aspects and role in the afterlife will help flesh out your article.

·      Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

I would argue no, most if not all the information is factoids collected from sources on the ritual or funerary texts.

4.      Content Neutrality – the article should not try to persuade the reader of a specific idea or view

·      Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?

Nope, like I said it's mostly factoids on how the ceremony would be performed or excerpts from funerary texts.

·      Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."

·      Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."

Not that I could notice great job, all I can say is double check your own work before submission after editing from your notes.

·      Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.

The information you cover is largely practices and or texts/tools so it's hard to argue a moral compass towards any of your points made. I think the article is neutral in it's presentation.

5.      Sources – article content should be supported by good and reliable sources

·      Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?

It looks like most of the sources you're adding are from Museums so yeah reliable from the original article it looks like most are from universities but I noticed one is from Wiktionary which I don't know how great of a look it is to referance wikipedia in a wikipedia article so finding an alternative source on referance 1 https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ps%C5%A1_k%EA%9C%A3f could improve this but it's not a huge problem.

·      Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.

From the article no from your notes not really I think it's okay to use sources more than once as long as it isn't a large portion of the end article the information should be well balanced between your sources.

·      Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!Maybe I'm just confused but The excerpts from the book of the dead should be referenced it looks like the article only references the statements made before and after.

Some Concluding remarks: double check your sources in your draft one has some error codes that you will want to manually edit. You might want to add a bibliography it makes citing texts (such as the book of the dead) pretty and useful for anyone reviewing your article if this is confusing just check out some well reviewed articles. Also your article mentions Wadjet (my article!) who knows my article might have useful info or sources check out my draft! Lastly, consider including hyperlinks where applicable lots of Egyptian terms probably have articles attached to them same with locations and names such as Shabtis from your notes or The Tomb of Rekhmire.

also this source has a lot of images from Egypt

http://www.venerabilisopus.org/en/images/1_4_egypt/2_19_ancient?page=4