User:Ben arnold6/Tombos (Nubia)/Mkan18 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
 * https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/Ben%20arnold6
 * 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?
 * The preexisting lead is quite thorough, but my peer needs to add more content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it does
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, there are no major sections described
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is overly detailed since all the info is not sectioned/split up

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content isn't persuasive and has a neutral tone.
 * In the caption on one of the pictures, the author uses the word 'likely'; maybe try using different phrasing to sound more sure/definite!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No, more Wikipedia pages and external sources could have been sited
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are listed as relatively current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Most of the links do not work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, just needs to be sectioned and elaborated upon
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, it is grammatically correct
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is in 3 paragraphs, which is fine, but would be more effective and clear if they were broken down into different sections.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * They could be a little more detailed or rephrased
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The images are a little cluttered near the top of the page and come before the intro, which looks a little strange. Maybe staggering them to the right and left of the text and moving it downwards would be better and more clear.

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?
 * Since the sources listed are not accessible/links don't work, the editor needs to refer to different and more sources.
 * 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?

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?
 * This article is a good start but needs a good amount of work to build it beyond just the basics of the site it has addressed!
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Sections should be added, more sources should be compiled, and the author/editor should elaborate on their points and add more information.

Overall evaluation
Overall, this article should include more subheadings/sections, but the information presented was thorough and neutral, so with a bit of editing and elaboration on topics, I think it'll turn out well! Also, I liked the use of pictures and the captions, so I may implement that on my own article!