User:Mamasanogo81/Kufic/Zoedescoteaux Peer Review

Peer review
User: Mamasanogo81

Link: User:Mamasanogo81/sandbox

Lead evaluation
There is not really a lead but rather different sections of one overall topic. The first section does include an introductory sentence that clearly describes the topic of the article, and there are references to other sections of the article. The first section includes information that is present throughout the article, and is clear and concise.

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. It seems like there is no missing content and the article is very well developed from the original.

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is fairly neutral but I would steer clear from using words such as "argues" because it insinuates that there is a claim being made. Other than this the added content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position.

Sources and references evaluation
There are a number of current sources that thoroughly back up the content (the links do work). Most of the sources are from the early and later 2000s which is pretty up to date for the topic. I'm working on a very similar article and I've found that there is not much research on topics such as Kufic script.

Organization evaluation
The new content added is much more organized than the original article which has very similar sections. It is clear and easy to read with only a few grammatical errors. The sections are relevant to the topic and reflect the most important and major points.

Images and media evaluation
The added images do enhance what the writer is explaining about the topic and the reader's understanding, although they are not captioned. Images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, and are laid out in a visually appealing way.

Overall evaluation
The article benefits from the added content and is much more complete. The content added strengthens the quality of the article but the first section could be less argumentative.