User:Ben arnold6/Tombos (Nubia)/Matthew Jez 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? 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 itself is at an ideal length and contains the majority of the most significant information in regard to the site location. I might recommend adding a second sentence or two briefly discussing the site's categorization and findings, but the majority of the content found within is very effective.

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
The information about the site itself is contextualized well. The location, discovery and historical context are all represented. I would recommend going into greater detail about individual digs, including information on the methods used during the excavation mentioned in the article. However, the information on the actual findings were well represented and contained a solid amount of detail.

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 article maintains a neutral tone throughout the entire work. At no point does the author present his own opinion or present a certain point of view as fact.

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
The author presents a good amount of sources in order to properly represent their work. While links 2 and 3 don't seem to function correctly, the sources that are presented all lead to reliable sources.

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
So far the article seems to be organized farely well. Although the author is yet to include individual sections, the order and organization of their work suggests that adding them in will be a fairly easy task. The article is also free of grammatical and syntax errors.

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 article contains a good amount of images that all represent the site well. All of the images seem to fall within Wikipedia's guidelines and have good captions. There is also a good variety between close up photos and images that represent the site as a whole.

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 contains a sufficient amount of sources all of which are relevant to the topic. The article does not contain any info boxes that feel like filler and, although there is still information to be added, the article's current state leaves me to believe that new information will be handled with the same care.

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
Overall, the article represents the core of the site very well. It includes references to the site's location as well as its significant excavations and findings. While it would be helpful to add some information about the specific details of the excavations, namely the methods, these are mostly minor details. Although there is still room to divide the article into smaller sections as well, the overall format is still very organized and very easy to read, making this task very feasible.