User:Ben arnold6/Tombos (Nubia)/Aboulter Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Ben arnold6
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Tombos (Nubia)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

 * The lead is good as it is easily readable and gives a little information on the site. It mentions the general location, a little history, the site type, and a little about the excavation history.
 * The article only contains a lead so far, but I could see how the lead sets up the major sections of this article when those sections get added.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

 * As mentioned, the article doesn't have sections yet, so the sections are missing from the article at the moment. The content in the lead however, seems to be relevant and sets up the article and how and what information will be presented.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

 * The content from the lead appears to be detail and fact oriented, which is good. Since the article's sections aren't fully written out its hard to gauge if certain sections will be over/underrepresented. I would make sure to go into an appropriate amount of depth on the excavation/investigation history and the analysis of the finds.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

 * There are five references that were used in this article, which is a good amount. All five come from the last decade, making them recent.
 * The British Museum links don't appear to be working.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

 * Though the article doesn't have sections yet, the lead appears to set-up how the article should be organized well. There don't appear to be any grammatical error that I was able to catch.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

 * The images added of the general site location and rock art appear to be relevant and enhance the reader's experience. The images are captioned well. Because the article only contains a lead for right now, the images are a bit clustered and should be organized a bit better once the article is expanded.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation

 * The article does have 2-3 reliable sources. The article also has links to other articles that will help enhance the reader's experience.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

 * This article is a good start. The lead is well written and helps to lay out how the article's sections will be organized in the future. The images and linked articles also help make the user's experience more enjoyable. The article just needs to be expanded on with many sections and headings to keep it organized.