User:Majed Eid M Rahimi/The Mughal Harem/Eliseprovident Peer Review

General info
User:Majed Eid M Rahimi
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Majed Eid M Rahimi/The Mughal Harem
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):The Mughal Harem

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. I would perhaps restructure the first sentence to sound more streamlined (“institution of the harem” reads as clunky to me). I would also add who the subject matter is of “paramount importance” to (historians, social scientists, politicians. etc.).
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No. All information in the Lead can also be found in the body of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I believe you could shorten your description of the article’s major sections. I would instead add in an extra detail or two on the author or harems as an institution.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Absolutely. In comparison to the original article, there is far more relevant information about the author, structure of the book, book contents, etc.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. All the information comes from sources published in the past twenty-five years. Some sources are as recent as this year.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think you could go into greater depth on certain aspects of your topic, particularly the author and scholarly opinions (I touch on this elsewhere in my review). That being said, you have a lot of excellent content in your draft thus far. I do not see any irrelevant content.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added is generally neutral. However, you add a lot of adjectives that imply value. For instance, I would avoid words like unique and fascinating because both have more positive than negative connotations. Instead, try more neutral words like original and complex. Going off this idea, your article sometimes reads more like a research paper than a Wikipedia article. Remember, less is more! You do not need to use adjectives in all these instances. Focus on conciseness and readability, and you will get rid of a lot of these value-heavy adjectives.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. As I talk about in the next question, your article (especially the analysis section) is very balanced.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Your analysis section is balanced, referencing various scholarly opinions on the academic and cultural value of the book. I am unsure what you plan on keeping from the original article, but I also recommend including some quotes from scholars of each viewpoint. Some brief quotes would provide a better idea of how/why these scholars agree/disagree with Lal.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. Like I said above, the content added is generally neutral. The only “persuasive” content I would recommend changing are the value adjectives I described above.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Unclear. Looking at your sources, I am inclined to say yes. However, you have very few in-text citations to tell me which sources you are pulling from for what information.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes, but like I said, few in-text citations. I am guessing you are still working on this? One of your references is incomplete.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes. See above.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? As far as I can tell.
 * 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.) Are you citing the book itself? Are you summarizing based on the secondary sources listed? I recommend looking at the original text to ensure you are summarizing the content properly.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Many of the sources lack links but have DOI or ISBN numbers listed. Those that do have links work!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? You obviously have strong writing skills. As I referenced earlier, I think you could benefit by simplifying your writing. I recommend that you remove unnecessary adjectives and shorten your sentences to increase readability.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not see any glaring grammatical or spelling errors. I would continue to proofread as you write and finish up the article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think the content is well-organized. The sections flow logically and build on each other to enrich readers’ understanding of the topic. None of the sections feel tangential or superfluous.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Absolutely! This is already leagues ahead of the previous version.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? You provide much more depth into what the book is about and why it matters. The content section was almost nonexistent before your edits.
 * How can the content added be improved? I recommend simplifying your writing to make it sound less like a research paper and more like a Wikipedia article. I also recommend you add in/fix your citations, but I recognize this is still in-progress for you. Finally, I would add a few more sentences on each of the topics I described in the Lead, Content, and Tone and Balance sections above. Great job!