User:Payton.dawson/Ancient Egyptian funerary practices/Dmitter 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? payton.dawson
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Ancient Egyptian funerary practices

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? was not neccessary as the content added was to expanded on information already there.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not really. There are a lot of sections and the lead just does an overview on what will be touched on.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Consise

Lead evaluation 9/10
This lead is already done pretty well. You can addd details on what will be included in each section. It has an overview but these sections are jampacked and I find myself looking over the table of contents more than the lead for information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The last section does not seem to be needed or relevent consisesly. It is also not mentioned in the lead. Ancient Egyptian Mummification and Funeral in Fiction
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Not particularly.

Content evaluation 8/10
I feel it could be hard to see what is missisng in this article so you have done a good job at filling in the gaps so far.

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? No, it does a good job in the history section of mentioning multiple theories/interpretations. It could talk more in the moder day section about any issues with modern day analysis. It does a good job of pulling from sources and keeping the information full of Egyptian beliefs and not others.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation 10/10
The tone is great throughout the article and you have matched it well.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes they are good sources that were added
 * Are the sources current? Yes the ones added are within 5 years
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation 9/10
You did a good job finding good sources that are recent.

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? Not that I notices, but they are frequently fixed I can see on the talk page
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? not that much content has been added yet for this question

Organization evaluation 10/10
The already added information is organized well. I love the chronological format of the history section and of the article overall.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
They did not add images but there are a good amount of them on here already.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It is. Like I said it is hard to find places that needs to be contributed to, but the information added was good and was not unneccessary or forced.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Payton added more details to help visualise the processes of the funeral practices. Added factual information that also helps us better imagine the details of the practices.
 * How can the content added be improved? Add more deep information. What is added seems like quick facts that you can fit in there, but maybe find a good chunck to add. Although, may be hard with this article particularly. You could also move around the sections a bit to help it flow. Such as the animal section could be inside of the mummification section or right after it.

Overall evaluation 8/10
Your sandbox is nice. I enjoyed the way you keep track of changes you have made so far and have your plan on there already. I am not sure if you are doing more than one article but you might want to look into that. The information you added is good but you might benefit from an article not as finished as this one.