User:Transparentv/Apep/Ancientwonder4253 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Transparentv


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


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Apep

Evaluate the drafted changes
General Notes:

It is helpful when specific words like Set and Thoth (etc) have links to other wikipedia articles so that those who don't know what those words reference can find the right source.

Worship: I like that you have included the varying periods. An idea you could consider is when you move from the old kingdom to the new kingdom maybe adding a section referencing what the first texts about him say if you can find them.

I wonder if it would be better to refer to him as Apep throughout the article since that is what the wikipage calls him, as opposed to Apophis? It may be confusing for the reader to see him referred to as Apep in the original sections and Apophis in these sections.

The Lead Section:

The lead section of the wikipage does not seem repetitive or lacking. It makes the importance of Apep clear and provides a good basis for the information that comes next.

The summary section of the draft has some information that needs to be fact-checked and cited:

"he was considered the embodiment of the evil god set" - I'm wondering if there is a reliable source for this? Apep is considered to be the god of chaos specifically and is sometimes equated with Set but I believe the general consensus is that they are different, Apep being much darker and chaotic while Set was more the god of choatic things like war. This contrast is also referenced later in your article when you talk about Set fighting Apophis, which may be confusing for the reader.

There is also some repetition with this section and in relation to later sections:

"Apophis was believed to be an insidious underworld serpent who embodied chaos and threatened cosmic order." - most of the information in this section has been states already in sentences above it so you could probably reword it or get rid of it all together?

I wonder if the detailing of Apep's interactions with Ra in the summary would be better suited for the 'Battles with Ra' section? Perhaps the section itself could be renamed to something like interactions with Ra to show the significance.

Clarity of Article Structure:

I feel that the article is clear and well-covered. The organization makes sense, the only section that could potentially be moved further up is Worship which could be put under Development and before Battles with Ra.

'''Coverage Balance: '''It is hard to say if the content is balanced since nothing is cited. The sources given in references are varied so if multiple of those are used in each section then I would say it is balanced. The article does not feel like it draws conclusions or is trying to be persuasive which is good and the length of each section reflects the importance of those sections well. I like the added section "battles with other gods" as that seems like an important aspect of Apep to cover that the original article was missing out on.

The summary section of the draft seems like it could be divided into parts, with each part fitting into the varying already existing sections for the most part. I wonder how much of the summary could be added to other sections so that the overall article will feel more concise?

Content Neutrality:

The content in both the original article and the draft feel neutral, not like they are trying to convince the reader one way or another. I do wonder if 'the ancient Egyptians believed' could be replaced with the sources that prove this? In the original article this also happens with 'Storytellers said..' in Battles with Ra, I wonder if the writing for those could be found/if that should be flagged so the original author of that section can add that reference in?

Sources:

Good variation in sources

Sources are neutral and balanced

Sources seem reliable and are textbooks and published journal articles.

Sources are mentioned in the references but not within the text itself which makes it hard to know what is and is not cited from a reference. Make sure all of your claims that you are adding to the original page is cited both within the text and in the resources at the bottom. You can have more than one citation lead back to the same source.