User:Nathananguyen/Ishtar Gate/Lawrencekp Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Nathananguyen
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nathananguyen/Ishtar Gate

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, they have been updating as well as changing some of the lead
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes there already was one it is being reworded
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I think they could add more info here to lead into the articles sections
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The information in the lead is continued and expanded on in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is really nice I like how they are adding information like the museums where the rest of the panels are

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? One of the sources is more recent while two of their new sources are older
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I mean its only the beginning of the article so I know a lot more information will be added, none of the stuff they added seems out of place
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? yes

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I don't think so
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no, its just factual

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes the sources they cited are scientific or historical journals
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? like I said previously one is two are older
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I think the ones they have now are good
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes, obviously more is needed though. I would suggest making an outline with how you want to structure the article going forward. That is what I did.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are lots of pictures throughout and a gallery at the bottom
 * Are images well-captioned? They seem to be good, they go along with information in the article
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

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


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes and I think with the information added to the lead it makes it easier to understand. I definitely agree with a few of the original sentences needing rewording.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Seems to have good source materials and seems to be good editing. I know we just started so I feel like you already have a lot done.
 * How can the content added be improved? I mean more information needs to be added outside the lead. I would like to know other ways you want to improve the article other than just the lead.

Overall evaluation
What they have done seems good, I mean I don't think any of us have enough information to fully fill out this form because we just started writing. They seem to have good sources from what I have seen. The writing for the article seems to flow with the rest and the edits seemed to only improve the article, overall a really good start! Sorry I didn't have a lot of other criticism or suggestions.