User:Chrisad88/Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt/Rachelneeld Peer Review

General info
Chrisad88
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Chrisad88/Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt

Evaluate the drafted changes
I'm doing Senusret III. Kind of funny I ended up back in the 12th dynasty!

Do you have sources to cite for your Amenemhat I, III and IV sections?

I like how you provided more information about each king. It's pretty bare in the original article.

The questions

The Lead Section

I feel like the Lead section gives a good overview of the subject. It could, however benefit from some sources. It makes a claim that some scholars only include the 11th and 12th dynasties to be the middle kingdom. It's unsourced. The lead also says that it's the apex of the middle kingdom. That is kind of vague and also unsourced.

2. Clarity of Article Structure – each important aspect of the article should have its own clear

and distinct section

I think that your article is presented in a really logical way. I would maybe move the literature section to go above the ruler section. I feel like the more broad sections at the beginning and them the specific ruler sections about each king would make sense to me as a reader.

3. Coverage Balance

The additions of the main accomplishments was a nice addition. You did a good job adding to the specific sections within the Ruler section. Some of the kings were a little sparse before your additions. Senusret III has the largest section, but I think there is also the most information available to find on him. I don't attribute that to bias.

4. Content Neutrality – the article should not try to persuade the reader of a specific idea or

view

In your history section, you do a good job adding in the skepticism. It helps remain neutral overall in the article. Your paragraph about expansion into Nubia needs a source, though. I think Van deMieroop talks about that in chapter 5. I don't see many phrases that contain bias or unneutral claims.

5. Sources – article content should be supported by good and reliable sources

The sources all seem like they are from reliable sources. You lean a little heavily on Van deMieroop in your sources. Maybe you could find another point of view to balance out the article. I liked using the essays from the MET. They usually list their sources below art which is pretty helpful.

There aren't any sources in the literature section. There aren't a whole lot of claims either. It's just stating works from the period. Maybe it's ok as is? I just get nervous when a whole section has no citations.

I think adding a source to the Prophecy of Neferti would be beneficial.

Overall, I think your additions to each king is a really beneficial contribution. Just make sure that your new claims are supported.