User talk:Archaeologyslay/Tomb of Horemheb in Saqqara

Finished my peer review for your article
Im not sure if I have to add it here or not

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Archaeologyslay


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Archaeologyslay/Tomb of Horemheb in Saqqara:


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Tomb of Horemheb in Saqqara

The Lead Section[edit]

 * I feel the lead section does a good job in relaying what the importance of the article is. I feel that the third and fourth paragraphs of the original article could use some reworking or revision to flow better.
 * The lead in the original article is the entire article I think it does contain the most important information but some things can be moved around into their own sections.
 * The lead section does give some attention to information that could be given their own dedicated sections. I think the lead should just contain the first paragraph and maybe second paragraph but move the rest to their own sections.
 * Overall, I think the lead will be good with just the first paragraph and second paragraph the edit of moving the third paragraph down to the article body is good. I would also suggest moving the paragraph about military depictions in the tomb in the article too.

Clarity[edit]

 * The original article needs to be broken into sections over having all the information in the lead section, the edit moving the third paragraph down to the article body is good. The section about the different excavations is also a good addition.
 * If you can find more sources about the military depictions I think moving that paragraph from the lead to the body section after the section about the building phases of the tomb will be good.

Coverage Balance[edit]

 * I think the additions that you are making of the excavations is a good length as the importance can be put on them, if you can find more to strengthen the section of the building phases of the tomb I think the article will have a good balance.
 * I don't know of any other voices that could be included as a source, if there is anything else published from a different source I think it'll be important to include them. As the article stands now and the additions that will be made there is one dominant source where all the information is coming from.
 * The article and the additions being made don't draw conclusion and isn't trying to convince the reader to accept a particular view point.

Content Neutrality[edit]

 * There isn't a perspective from the author that I can find in the article or the additions that will be made. Everything is neutral.
 * There aren't any phrases or words that don't feel neutral in the article or the additions that will be made.
 * There also isn't claims made on behalf of unnamed groups or people
 * There also isn't a focus on negative or positive information everything is presented in a neutral way clearly stating information.

Sources[edit]

 * Most statements with a connected source in the additions being made to the article are connected to the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology detailing the different excavations of the tomb. In the original article the main source Saqqara Online feels questionable, I'm unsure of the quality and reliability of this source.
 * The sources for the added section of the excavations only has one source, but I'm not sure if another would be required for this section as the source being used would be the best for the information being presented.
 * In the original article there are large sections that don't have any sources attributed to the information being presented, doing more research to find sources that can be attributed to information in the lead section will be good.

Overall, I think the addition of the different excavations and what you have moved to the body section of the article is well done, I would recommend finding more sources for the information already in the article if you're keeping them.

Maka&#39;alaKaono (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)