User:WitchyWriter/Sculptured stones/Mhayko11 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

WitchyWriter


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:WitchyWriter/Sculptured stones - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Sculptured stones - Wikipedia
 * Sculptured stones - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Britt!

Lead Section Evaluation: Your lead section does not seem to have been changed at all compared to the one that is currently in the article. It looks like you just added so paragraph breaks and I do not believe those are necessary. I think the lead is good and concise, but I think perhaps you should add some information about the sections you will be adding to the article if they are not already covered in what the lead is describing. Links to sources also need to be added to this lead section. It looks as though other Wikipedia articles are linked but no outside citations are embedded. The lead section could also use a few grammatical fixes, where sentences are just worded strangely and could use a look over, especially if you do not plan on changing the content of the lead section. Overall, the lead needs to be updated to reflect the content you are adding to the article and maybe include some new information (if you see fit based on your research).

Content and Tone + Balance Evaluation: I do not have any background knowledge on this topic, but it all seems to go together with the topic, and it seems to be up to date based on your variety of sources. Again, everything seems to be relevant I think there could be better organization within the article though. Your content comes across as neutral and any claims that could be biased you make sure to include the author who is responsible for the claim or viewpoint.

Sources and References Evaluation: It looks like all your content is backed up by the sources you provide but again make sure you are linking your writing to the source itself, so viewers do not have to question where your content is coming from. I appreciate that all your sources are academic in nature and are not super outdated. Maybe poke around in a few databases that you have yet to search (if any) to see if you can find anything else on your topic. All the claims you write about are interesting, but I think they would benefit from being expended upon further to the point where you could have more individual sections.

Organization Evaluation: This is the area that you seem to have the most trouble with right now based off what you have in your sandbox. There are many grammatical errors that need to be addressed. You should also break the body of your article up into different sections, so that it is clearer to your audience what you are talking about, because right now it feels as though the article is jumping all over the place.

Overall Impressions: I think the content you have for your article is interesting and valuable for updating the article. The sources you provide are strong and academic which is perfect for the topic you are writing on. However, in its current state it is hard to understand because it is not organized as well as it could be.

Thank you, I hope you find this helpful!!

Maddie