User:Adp2020/Medieval bioarchaeology/Cgpitt Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Adp2020
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Adp2020/sandbox
 * Medieval bioarchaeology

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There has been no content added that would need to be updated in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead does include an introductory sentence that broadly explains bioarcheology as well as what populations are studied in medieval bioarcheology.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does not include a description of the articles main sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? the lead lacks any content beyond defining bioarcheology, so no it doesn't present information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
I think that this section needs to include a summary of the major sections. It does not provide enough information to make a reader feel that they know enough about the importance of the topic.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? So far, only a sentence regarding isotope analysis to determine food sources has been added and this content is relevant to the topic in that it explains how this technique is used to study the dead. In the user sandbox there are potential references that have been added.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? When looking at the revision history for the article as a whole, the most recent edits were made in September of 2020. However in reference to the addition of the users content, the publishing information says that it was published in 2020 indicating to me that it is up yo date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Looking at the article it seems as though all of the content that is present belongs to this article. There is mention of non-specific stress indicators but no elaboration on what exactly those are. think there needs to be more general information on what these include. While reading this article I found that for almost each section where a study is mentioned only study is mentioned. I think there needs to be less focus on the outcomes of a singular study and maybe draw in more information from other studies that provide the same conclusion to further the main point of the section.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This article does not deal with an equity gap.

Content evaluation
I think that there needs to be improvement on the non-specific stress indicators section. What exactly is a non-specific stress indicator and what do they mean. Are all skeletal and dental non-specific stress indicators mentioned? I really think that a big content gap is the focus on singular studies to represent an entire point or section. I think that it would be useful to use many studies with the same outcomes or findings to really cement the point or the information that the article is trying to get across.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? So far not much new content has been added except for an addition about the isotope analysis of food sources. This content is neutral and the content that is already written is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No claims appear to be heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? As mentioned above. This article references many studies, however, each of these studies is to back sort of an entire section of the article. I think that to expand the credibility of these sections and ensure that the information is balance is unbiased these studies would need to be replicated in reference from other sources.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I don't think the content comes across as persuasive, it comes off as informative.

Tone and balance evaluation
I think the overall town and balance of this article is fairly neutral and I don't feel as though I am trying to be persuaded into believing a certain viewpoint. I think that this could be better enhanced if other peoples studies where reference in section so that the reader doesn't feel like they are only understanding the viewpoint of one researcher.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The content added about isotope analysis on food sources is referenced and does appear to be cited in a relevant secondary source. Also, in the users sandbox they have added several potential references, one as current as 2019 and these do appear to be reliable secondary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? When looking through some of the sources, especially the ones that are from 2013-2015 I think that most of the reflect the available literature.
 * Are the sources current? the sources include findings from 1893 to 2015. Most of the references are from the 2000s which I think is fairly current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? With 20 references, I found that each one of them includes information from a diverse set of authors. There was not too much focus on a single articles work or conclusions.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? When clicking through the links I found all of the ones that I clicked on to work properly

Sources and references evaluation
All in all, I think that the sources and references section is pretty solid. However, I do find it hard to believe that there has been no more new information available within the last 5 years. I would find it as a reader to be more of a credible article if this user could add information that has been found within the last 5 years.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The new content is concise, clear, and is well structured. Also, the pre-existing content is well written and is easy to understand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I found there to be no grammatical or spelling errors while reading through the article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think that the article has a really good flow to it in terms of the major points reflected and the sub-sections of these major points. I like how the stress indicators are broken down into dental and skeletal, with specific indicators discussed under each. I also liked the progression into other stress indicators such as activity indicators as well as diet and dental health indicators.

Organization evaluation
Overall, I think that this article is organized in a very efficient and easy to read manner.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media :No images have been added by my user


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, these images enhance the topics and understanding of the articles content.
 * Are images well-captioned? Although all of the images include a caption, the captions could more specifically describe what is occurring in each of them especially when referencing the non-specific stress indicators.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, they seemingly adhere to regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, they are placed where they fit best in the article and add to the content.

For New Articles Only (N/A)
If the draft you're reviewing is 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? I think that although not much new content has been added, looking at some of the references located in the user's sandbox, significant improvements could be made to the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? One of the potential references is as current as 2019 and I think that this could help strengthen the credibility of the overall article. I think that the content added in the isotopes section helps to explain how this can be used and applied to determining the diets of people who are no longer living.
 * How can the content added be improved? Although no new content has been added I believe that Maddy information from studies specifically studies that are more current could really help to improve this article I also think elaboration on the image captions would help the reader to understand what is actually being described in the article. I think that if this user utilizes the references that he/she has proposed as potential ways to improve the article my thought is that the more sources and the more information that is cited can only improve the article.

Overall evaluation
I think that this user is off to a good start with compiling a list of references that he or she can potentially use as citations or references in the article. I think that in terms of adding content it would be useful for the user to create a sort of outline as to what needs be added to what section. Specifically, I think the sections that need the most help are the ones that reference a singular study (such as the Harris line study). I think that if the user could find studies that support these sections and the study that has already been referenced it would provide potential readers with a more assured feeling that what they're reading wasn't a fluke or wasn't only observed in one study. The lead also needs improvement to showcase what the article is about.