User:Fire lily445/Rock-cut tombs in ancient Israel/Turtlesaregr8 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?
 * fire lily445
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Fire lily445/Rock-cut tombs in ancient Israel

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * not yet, although the lead sentence for the particular section they are inserting is awesome
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * mostly, but I think the introduction section can be expanded a little to include more information as well as some citations.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * no, but there is a table of contents
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no, everything in the lead is located in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * the lead is definitely concise, but a little too much. There needs to be just a bit more information. However, the section that I saw firelily working on is very good.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * some are very recent, but some of the sources are from the 70's
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * definitely need some stuff about the Bronze age tombs. There is only one sentence that is under the section and it makes the article's layout seem weird.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * definitely, Israel is already a politically turbulent place. Not to mention it is about Jewish burials, not something history books tend to think about.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes, no obvious personal leanings
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * none whatsoever
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I would just say that when you are talking about how many people of Jewish faith wanted to be buried here, include the sources about it being a popular destination.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * nope, just trying to teach about a type of Jewish burial site.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes, written by a prestigious university
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes, there is an entire section of the book dedicated to external references.
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes, most of the sources are from 2018, so this is relevant information
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * no, this is one author, but they include a lot of different perspectives
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes, and it has a very nice flow
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * not that I could tell
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes, the organization of both the sandbox and the article itself it very well done. However, the article needs to buff up in certain areas because the structure seems stilted.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * yes it does
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * the article could definitely benefit from some more sources, but the ones that are already in are very diverse. The only thing is the sandbox only has one source that I could tell, so I would just suggest some more.
 * 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?
 * yes it does
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * yes, and firelily is doing an awesome job within the sandbox of that as well.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * yes, it adds a very important section of history to a site about history.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * it is very informative, and it is not something that the article has mentioned anything about before.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Just needs more, that is all. But honestly it looks so good right now and I can't wait to check it out when it is all done.