User:Evkmpn/Nauwalabila I/Sbisho Peer Review

General info
Evkmpn
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User talk:Evkmpn/Nauwalabila I
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):No current article

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.)

The article is neutral and has a wide array of sources used within the article. Sentences were succinct and the article as a whole was cohesive. All is relevant and easy to understand.

Viewpoints of archaeologists are represented, though this is an archaeology article.

All links work and citations number above five. Sources back up the article, article represents the statements from the cited works faithfully.

Every statement is backed up with a source. These sources are objective and neutral, only relaying findings from the articles.

Sources are all up-to-date: the oldest is from the mid 90's.

Personal ideas: I think it would be interesting if you expanded on the findings: like the rock art's appearance beyond the material. Though I think pictures can do that for you as well.

This article was well-written and straight to the point, as any good wikipedia article should be. I can tell you did the work synthesizing. The word count is under 500 words, so I would expand on some of your points to get to that point. Amazing work, this will be a great article!