User:Ezafft1/Treasury of Atreus/S.F.ARE3030 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ezafft1


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ezafft1/Treasury_of_Atreus?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Treasury of Atreus

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead has been updated with content from the draft. The introductory sentence describes the topic well and, as a whole, it touches on what topics are going to be discussed later in the article. There is a good amount of information and it is easy to understand and enough to inform readers. All the information added seems to be relevant as it is things such as location, background, and construction. In the background section, a lot of the information seems like it might have more to do with location, but it can still act as a good background about Mycenae even though it focuses on the location (that is a part of it, after all). All the other sections have good information and are mostly comparable in size. I don't think there is any content that doesn't belong or any that is necessarily missing (as in, I'm sure other things could be added but the ones covered seem to offer a lot of good information). The tone is neutral and not persuasive. While not intensely biased by any means, there is one sentence that could perhaps be considered so: "...its monumental shape and grandeur make it one of the most impressive Mycenaean monuments." There isn't a source that is backing up this possible consensus either so that's why I've pointed it out. The rest of the article though maintains a neutral tone. The sources all seem to be from reliable and scholarly and, while the dates vary, there are plenty that are recent. The links I clicked worked. There are some spots in the article where some more citations could have been used (For example, the lead section and third paragraph in the structure section), but overall there is good use of sources. The content is well-organized and purposeful. There are several images, most of which have captions but I am not certain which were already there. Regardless, I think it could be beneficial if instead of the gallery style, the images were moved to parts of the article where they are being discussed or could be used as an example so that readers don't have to scroll to the bottom and find the one that they want. The pictures themselves are good examples of what is written in the article. I think the content added has improved the article. There was a lot of content added as well. It gave good, specific information without being too wordy or confusing.