User:Ed8795/Temple of the Gadde/Ardelpaschal Peer Review


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * There could be a clearer opening sentence indicating a general sentence of what is being looked at
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * Not that I can tell
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * No
 * I would add a mix of vocabulary instead of repeating "likely"--- Mix up more word choice
 * Guiding questions:
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, I would explain words used such as "dedicatory" for users.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Images and Media
 * I would try to make the pictures bigger if possible.
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The article is clear and provides a lot of information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The article includes specific information about the art work and it detailed and draws readers attention to specific parts of the article
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Defining terms that the public may not know. and Mixing up word choice would help make this article stronger.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

ed8795


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Ed8795/Temple of the Gadde


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Temple of the Gadde

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

A lot more information was added which makes this article stronger than what was previously written. There are many more scholarly sources that were implemented in order to back up the information written within the article.