User:Archaeologyslay/Tomb of Horemheb in Saqqara/Maka'alaKaono Peer Review

General info
Archaeologyslay
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * 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

 * 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

 * 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

 * 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

 * 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.