User:Ibell3772/Preah Khan Kompong Svay/Rbrasted Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Tsholmquist, Ibell3772


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ibell3772/Preah_Khan_Kompong_Svay?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Your lead seems to been updated, but also still in progress. It introduces the topic well, and does not bring up any information that is not in the article proper. I assume that you plan to expand on it and add more details as you flesh out the formatting for the rest of your article. You should definitely bring up the ironwork here, since that seems to be something the body of your article has a fair amount of information on. Overall, a good start that I'm sure will become even better as you add to it!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * I appreciate how much information you have added to this page! The content is definitely relevant and appears up to date. Personally, I would like to see more information about the artifacts/art from the site, if the sources allow - but the amount of information you have already seems sufficient if they don't..

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * I noticed some subjective phrasing at certain points (ie. "interesting to note" "many famous" "unusually for"). It seems like you are in a tricky place because a lot of what you have to go off is speculation by experts, so while your writing doesn't feel biased or like it is trying to be persuasive, there are also many speculative ideas mixed in with the facts.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * You have a lot of sources, and they are current as well as academic! I did catch a few sentences that were not cited - most noticeably in the lead where you talk about the site's lack of popularity. However, I realize you're still working on things, so as long as you give them a final read through at the end, I'm sure it will be find.  and I assume it's just an oversight!
 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * You have a really good start on the sections! All your sections so far have a lot of information, so I think it would be okay if you wanted to break them up or shift them around. For example, you could make a header about the history of the site, and then have a sub header for the history related to the occupation of the site, the discovery/looting of the site, as well as any archaeological work that took place there. It also seems like there are a lot of interesting architectural things happening at the site, so you could think about making a sub header specifically for that if you wanted.
 * I didn't see any spelling errors on my read through, but I did see a few editing comments here and there - but once again, I'm sure those will be removed as things are filled out.
 * Finally, I think it's really cool that you included measurements and Khmer translations for everything, but I do think there are some parts, such as the description of the site where they dominate the text. I'm not sure what a good solution for that would be, but it might be worth thinking about. That said, I think it's really neat that you were able to find so much information on everything, and I think your article is gonna turn out great!.

Images and Media

 * N/A

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * This article has a nice, extensive list of reputable sources that feels comprehensive. It also links to several different articles. The formatting looks really nice, though obviously the "lead" and "article draft/body" labels should be removed in the final page. A few images or info bars might also be an awesome addition since it seems to be a comparatively well documented site. (Possibly that might even be a good place to include the Khmer translations?