User:Gadzooksopposite/Nectanebo II/Rachelneeld Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
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?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Gadzooksopposite

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Gadzooksopposite/Nectanebo II
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Nectanebo II

Evaluate the drafted changes

The original article uses 'the' a lot in the lead. I like the removal for clarity.

I like your moving of the picture. It makes more sense here with your changes.

The questions:

The Lead

I really like your contributions to the lead. Every claim is sourced and accurate with your edits. You also mention important aspects that you expand on later in the article. Everything seems appropriate and related to the article. Good job removing the bias in "Egypt Prospered".

2. Clarity of Article Structure – each important aspect of the article should have its own clear

and distinct section

I'm pretty sure Napoleon was dead before 1978... right? Did you mean a different century? Do you have a source to link that he captured the city?

I think the content is organized well. I think that the sarcophagus section could stand alone under the Legacy section. It would be a nice concluding section. The flow of sections is logical. The content seems well sourced and up to date.

4. Content Neutrality – the article should not try to persuade the reader of a specific idea orview

In your Sarcophagus section, I think you do a good job listing several sources from differing views. While you address an argument, I don't feel you are trying to convince the reader of it. All phrasing seems neutral. Is there another opposing argument that should be considered or addressed in that section?

5. Sources – article content should be supported by good and reliable sources

Your sources seem reliable. In your sarcophagus section you use several sources to support claims. Nice job synthesizing from all the sources and not relying heavily on one. They look like they're presented correctly.

In the Reign section, the paragraph talking about foreign affairs has some claims that are not supported. Do you have a source supporting that the Persians attempted to reclaim Egypt? I think Van deMieroop talks about it if you're still looking.