User:Angelesmmm/User:Lamiy23/Mahmoud Mokhtar/Angelesmmm Peer Review

Lead
The lead does reflect the new content added by my peer and the introductory sentence does clearly and concisely describe the article's topic. It was very well done! There's lots of new information that wasn't featured in the previous article and mentions many important parts of the artist's life that weren't mentioned previously.

Content
All the content added was relevant to the topic, but it seems incomplete. There's nothing in the career section of the article and a sentence in the death section. The content added seems to be up to date. There's some content missing (as I mentioned before) but otherwise there doesn't seem to be any content that doesn't belong.

Tone and Balance
The content added is neutral, there are no opinions or preferences shown in the article. There are a lot of good facts mentioned. The content doesn't attempt to persuade the reader into anything.

Sources and References
There are no citations added (yet I'm assuming, the article doesn't seem to be complete yet). I can't say that whether or not all the facts have been backed up by secondary sources yet.

Organization
The content is very well written, it's easy to read and to understand. The content that is on the page is well organized and when new information is added the writer should keep the writing style consistent.

Images and Media
The article does include images that add to the article and include a useful caption. Perhaps more detail could be added (ex. date of the artwork) but otherwise it's well stated. I believe the image adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The visual is laid out in a clear way.

Overall Impressions
The new article adds a lot more detail and facts about the artist. Once the citations are added, it will improve the quality of the article by a lot. The facts about where the artist lived and the given example of their artwork helps add to the article. Just add more information to the career and death sections and add the citations and the article will be good!

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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.)