User talk:Traven Murphy/Story of Sinuhe

I've completed my peer review of your article and what you plan on adding and changing
I'm not sure if I have to put what my peer review is here but this is what I said

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Traven Murphy


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Traven Murphy/Story of Sinuhe
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Story of Sinuhe
 * Story of Sinuhe

Lead Section

 * I feel satisfied with the lead section communicating the importance of the topic, the focus of this section is good and the edits that you are making will make the section stronger
 * Yes the lead reflects the most important information, adding cultural and historical context to this section I believe will be good. I would say to keep them in their own paragraph rather than adding them to the paragraph already in this section
 * I don't think anything is redundant or missing, adding the cultural and historical context to this section will be good.

Clarity of Article Structure

 * I think the structure of the article is well organized, there isn't anything I can see that could be changed that wouldn't throw of the flow of the article.
 * You're already planning on reworking the summary and thats the only structural change I can see that will be made.

Coverage Balance

 * In the original article the section about interpretations of the story is the longest and largest section. I think if there is any unnecessary information or if anything seems repetitive to take it out
 * Also if there are any other parallels made with the story it'll be good to add to the parallel section of the article.
 * The original article has a variety of sources from different view points, but the source that you're adding will be good to increase this variety. I cant think of any other viewpoints that could be added.
 * I cant find anything that immediately jumped out to me as convincing the reader to accept one particular point of view. The only thing I'd say is that the interpretations article could slip into this but as long as the interpretations are presented with neutrality it'll be fine.

Content Neutrality

 * I can't detect any specific perspective of the author in writing the article or the additions you're making.
 * The only thing I can think that are words or phrases that don't feel neutral is in the interpretations section where "some interpretations", "some state", or "most authors agree" I would take out or change these phrases if you plan on editing the paragraphs in the Interpretations sections. This pertains more to the article making claims on behalf of unnamed groups, if you can find what groups or individuals are making these interpretations that would be better to include.
 * I think the article and what you're adding presents the information without focusing on negative or positive information making clear reflections of the topic.