User:Lindsing17/International Campaign to Save the Monuments of Nubia/Honkshoo The Bird Man Peer Review

General info
Lindsing17
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Lindsing17/International Campaign to Save the Monuments of Nubia - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):International Campaign to Save the Monuments of Nubia - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
Ohhhh thank you for adding the whole point to the campaign/project in your article! great addition to the beginning of the article. it adds clarity!

thank you for removing the repetition in the first paragraph of the article, the original author also sort of added things that weren't exactly relevant to the contents of the rest of the paragraph so thank you for fixing that.

I think providing a short overview before the contributions section was a wise decision. the lengthy overview in the original article was distracting and hard to process.

Lead Section
I feel like I know everything I need to know about the topic in the leading paragraph. The leading paragraph is very detailed but brief allowing for good immersion and motivation to keep reading. The paragraph grabs the reader's attention and makes them care about the issue. Paragraph doesn't seem to repeat anything in the article nor is it redundant.

Clarity of Article Structure
The sections of your article are divided nicely and in correspondence to the amount of information needed on each topic of each paragraph. The order in which the sections are written is nicely organized and makes sense.

Coverage Balance
It doesn't seem like anything mentioned in the article is off-topic nor unrelated to the subject. The article mentions everything I feel I need to know about the subject and is written in a way that it flows. The article is written with no biases on the matter which is very good to see; a Wikipedia article should be information, not opinion.

Content Neutrality
As I've mentioned, I see no biases. Good job

Other Comments
There was only one other thing I saw that may clear things up a bit. In your "Abu Simbel" section the article says 'However, the proposal, though acknowledged to be extremely elegant, was rejected." I could have somehow looked over the reason why it was rejected but if it isn't stated in the article maybe you could add why the proposal was rejected? I think it would add just a little pinch of important information. Other than that, this is a really good, well written article and I believe it is ready to be published!