User:GabrielleGutierrez/Buhen/Lunabean0204 Peer Review

General info
GabrielleGutierrez
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:GabrielleGutierrez/Buhen
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Buhen

Evaluate the drafted changes
The Lead Section

- Very clean structure. Paragraphs were condensed and created several rather than one large paragraph; makes readability nice.

- Importance of the topic is introduced and explained enough to emphasize the reason for being important.

- The most prominent concept of the lead is about the geography but no where else is geography mentioned, consider shifting focus. While the lead contains a lot of good information, there is a limited mention of what the article is about. Consider having a paragraph that introduces the headquarters, copper production, and the Buhen Horse within the lead.

- Overall, very nice structure and readability was clean.

Clarity of Article Structure

- The sections flow together, building ideas off of each other, to blend an idea behind the topic

- The add in of the Headquarters section flows nicely with the Fortress section

- There is no mention of the Buhen Horse before the section is presented. Consider adding in the relevance before section, (even if in lead) to help with the flow

Coverage Balance

- The lead length is not overwhelming and reader friendly. The added section of Headquarters is broken well into three paragraphs that is very approachable.

- The article is informative and does not have any persuasive language. I would consider proof reading out loud to remove unnecessary words that make sentences feel like a lot.

- The Copper Production section is very informative but more description as to why it is significant to Buhen can be beneficial for the reader to understand the topic

Content Neutrality

- Some sentences could be shorter to help with the main point.

- There is neutral language throughout the article. No sides or biases are taken.

- Overall, very good structure and language use

Sources

- Only one source used in the Headquarters section and only included once. Not sure if that is meant to cover the information for the whole section or not. Only one source is used in the Buhen Horse section and it is not included in the first paragraph, again not sure if it is meant to be used for whole section or not.

- I think there are already a variety of photos within the original article that no more need to be added, writer is on the right track

- Sources are reliable and fit in well with the others

Overall, very solid edits to the original article.