User:Hazelsvest/Scarab (artifact)/EdieJones71 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: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA 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.
Additional Resources |
General info
edit- Whose work are you reviewing?
Hazelsvest
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- User:Hazelsvest/Scarab (artifact)
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Scarab (artifact)
Evaluate the drafted changes
editLead: Could be broken up a bit. The lead can include a quick description of the scarabs, but maybe the rest of the information could form or be included in another section (i.e. dating and location).
Clarity: Information is clear, but it remains mostly unaltered (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). Clarification on why the Uluburun Shipwreck is included in the religious significance section. Could it be moved somewhere else or is there a way to more clearly connect it to the section? Picture included of Khepri is lot more useful in the religious section,
Coverage: Description could use a picture or two.
Neutrality: Information is neutral and unspeculating.
Sources: I appreciate you refernecing sources in the sections you worked on. You could maybe pull in a couple more sources to use in the article.