User:Chrisad88/Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt/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?

Chrisad88

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Chrisad88/Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt

Evaluate the drafted changes

I'm doing Senusret III. Kind of funny I ended up back in the 12th dynasty!

Do you have sources to cite for your Amenemhat I, III and IV sections?

I like how you provided more information about each king. It's pretty bare in the original article.

The questions

The Lead Section

I feel like the Lead section gives a good overview of the subject. It could, however benefit from some sources. It makes a claim that some scholars only include the 11th and 12th dynasties to be the middle kingdom. It's unsourced. The lead also says that it's the apex of the middle kingdom. That is kind of vague and also unsourced.

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

and distinct section

I think that your article is presented in a really logical way. I would maybe move the literature section to go above the ruler section. I feel like the more broad sections at the beginning and them the specific ruler sections about each king would make sense to me as a reader.

3. Coverage Balance

The additions of the main accomplishments was a nice addition. You did a good job adding to the specific sections within the Ruler section. Some of the kings were a little sparse before your additions. Senusret III has the largest section, but I think there is also the most information available to find on him. I don't attribute that to bias.

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

view

In your history section, you do a good job adding in the skepticism. It helps remain neutral overall in the article. Your paragraph about expansion into Nubia needs a source, though. I think Van deMieroop talks about that in chapter 5. I don't see many phrases that contain bias or unneutral claims.

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

The sources all seem like they are from reliable sources. You lean a little heavily on Van deMieroop in your sources. Maybe you could find another point of view to balance out the article. I liked using the essays from the MET. They usually list their sources below art which is pretty helpful.

There aren't any sources in the literature section. There aren't a whole lot of claims either. It's just stating works from the period. Maybe it's ok as is? I just get nervous when a whole section has no citations.

I think adding a source to the Prophecy of Neferti would be beneficial.

Overall, I think your additions to each king is a really beneficial contribution. Just make sure that your new claims are supported.