User:Sabajian/Askut/Ben arnold6 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? (Sabajian)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Askut

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * 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? No, only the wall not anything else
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, article is extremely short as is
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Perfectly concise not to much detail, could use a little bit more honestly

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the wall that created lake Nubia is very relevant to the region
 * Is the content added up-to-date? No, I'm sure a lot more research has been done on the site that hasn't been added to the Wiki site
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, a lot of content missing. Only discusses the wall, and some structures inside but not to full detail

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? Why did they build this huge fortress, to protect from who?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, although kind of takes the side of the Egyptians without really considering the Nubia tribes that were attacking them

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, they have sources from UC Berkeley, which is extremely reliable
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? The sources are all 8 years old so there is probably newer information on the topic
 * 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 the short amount that is there is nicely divided and easy to follow
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I noticed
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes, but needs a lot more content and sections

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, helps you understand how rare a lake like Nubia is in the Sahara region of Northern Africa
 * Are images well-captioned? Could have better caption or update the photo of Lake Nubia because the image is 17 years old and it could've shrank a lot by now
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes the one image is nicely places

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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? No the literature is pretty dated
 * 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? No
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? No new content added that I could tell
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Good start for the introduction although should go a little more in depth on what you'll be discussing below
 * How can the content added be improved? A deeper analysis of the processes going on in the site not just focusing on the wall