User:RaccoonEnjoyer/Wooden tomb model/WesternGoblin Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

RacoonEnjoyer (fantastic username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:RaccoonEnjoyer/Wooden tomb model
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Wooden tomb model

Evaluate the drafted changes
Your lead section is so much better than the original. The original was so small and grammatically unsound, yours is a remarkable improvement, well done. I feel that it accurately covers the content of the rest of the article. One note is you have two sentences in there beginning with "over time", I might combine them into one sentence so that the whole lead section can be one paragraph and look a little better. But overall it does a good job of conveying the change over time that the rest of the article focuses on very well.

The article is very well structured, I like the chronological order, I think you should keep it. It adds a flow to the article that is super fun. If possible, with copyright, I might add a large gallery section at the end. I know it's kind of already there, but I'd add it in a dedicated section of it's own so that the information on the boat models themselves has room to breath. Also don't forget to make the heading titles in your draft "Heading" titles instead of "Sub-Heading" in the format.

The coverage is very good on what you've written, though the sections on the Middle/New kingdoms is lacking, which you've noted. I find one bit in the live article a little confusing, which was just the random inclusion of "During the reign of Senusret III, the use of wooden models in tombs declines and are no longer found." at the beginning of the section on the Middle/New kingdoms section. I think that it's just a little weird to open that section with it. So when you get to expanding that section I might get rid of that or provide a little more context around it. Also in the model boats section I'd reformat that bullet point list a little bit. It's super clunky and takes up a lot of room.

Very good neutral tone. I think that is one of the hardest things to do while writing these and you've done it phenomenally. Well done, no notes.

Your sources look really good and well dispersed in what you've written! Much much better than the original article which had only four sources in the section you revised. Now there are 10, for one section that's superb.

Overall very good article, I wish I had more constructive criticism to give you but I think what you've done is fantastic. Also sorry for the delay, I've had a rough week. Good luck with the rest of the article!