User:Rachelneeld/Senusret III/Chrisad88 Peer Review

General info
Rachelneeld
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Rachelneeld/Senusret III:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Senusret III

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * 1) Lead Section

I think that the edits made to the lead section do make it sound a lot less bias in comparison to the original article though I feel that referring to anyone as a “great” king in this context appears to reflect some sort of bias. I think great could be replaced with another word that sounds less like specific praise to him but still characterizes his accomplished reign. Adding the sources to the original articles claims is in my opinion an important improvement. Overall I think the lead gives a good overview of Senusret III’s rule.

2. Clarity of Article Structure

I think that the article structure is well organized and does not distract from the contents of the article. I can’t imagine another way for the article to be organized.

3. Coverage Balance

I think the coverage of each topic within the article is well-balanced. I think that the addition of a worship section makes perfect sense as I don’t think it would fit too well in any other section, at least not without major reorganization of the article. As I was reading, I could not think of any particular section in which I thought there was an apparent lack of information. Nice Job!

4. Content Neutrality

Overall I think the article remains neutral in its description of the Senusret III’s reign. As I mentioned in my feedback for the lead section, I personally believe that referring to a king as “great” carries a sense of bias towards him. However, I could totally be wrong and this is a common way to describe ancient rulers. Other then that, I could not find any examples of bias in the article.

5. Sources

You use a variety of sources to backup the claims made in the original article, which I believe strengthens the articles quality significantly. I especially liked the fact that at times, you used multiple sources to back up a singular claim, again I think this drastically improves this articles quality.

Overall I think your contributions to the article significantly improve upon what has previously been written.