Talk:Chichali (archaeological site)

Peer Review
I like the start of your article, You were very precise on the excavation also artifacts. Did you find any oral history of your site? What do the people of the region want done with the site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blong31 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
I enjoyed your article I think your writing style was easy to understand. I would definitely like you to expand on the figures found. Was there any additional details? Did they have photos? I think if you could find photos adding more specifics on what they look like would be great. I would also move the anthropomorphic figures section underneath the excavation section for better flow. All in all it was a good overview/baseline that can easily be the starting point for further research- well done. -Dani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani.xcv (talk • contribs) 20:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
The accuracy and specificity of your article is excellent and easy to understand for a non-archaeology based audience. Adding more details to describe the artifacts would benefit your article like photos of the artifacts if that's available. You started in a good place to begin and potentially adding in the culture of the people or just the lifestyle that could have or was there would be a suggested addition. -Carol ScroogeCNL (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)