User:Amyxlam/Booker Site/Ajdbuendia 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

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Amyxlam
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Booker Site

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?

Lead evaluation
The Lead has been updated to reflect new content. It includes introductory sentences that describe the article's topic by including the name of the site, it's location, when excavations began and by who. It includes a brief description of the excavation section that follows. There is no information information that is included in the lead that isn't present in the article. The Lead is fairly concise but there is information that definitely could be put into the excavation section rather than in the Lead.

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?

Content evaluation
The content that was included is relevant to the topic and is up to date from what I'm aware of. There doesn't seem to be any missing content or content that doesn't belong.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content appeared to me to be neutral. There are no claims towards a particular position, no viewpoints that are over-/underrepresented, nor does it attempt to persuade readers in any way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The content all seems to be backed up by a single source of information. I believe that this is just an early draft so the author of this likely did not find many other sources to site just yet. The on reference that is cited doesn't have a link attached to it so I recommend doing that.

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?

Organization evaluation
The content is clear and easy to read, however, I did notice a grammatical error in the Lead section. The following sentence seemed to be written a little weird:


 * "Excavations for this site began in 1993 was in Pike County, Illinois, where it was assumed to be a burial site."

So far there is only one section to the article so I think that it was broken down properly for an early draft.

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?

Images and media evaluation
N/A

For New Articles Only
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?

New Article Evaluation
So far, the article only has a single source so it doesn't quite yet meet Wikipedia's Notability requirement. It doesn't yet accurately represent all available literature on the subject. It seems to fellow the pattern of similar articles but I can't be for sure yet. There are 3 links in the article that link to other articles to make it 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?

Overall evaluation
I think that the content included definitely improves the quality of the article. I don't believe that there was anything previously published about this particular site. The biggest strength of this article is that they tried to include as much known detail about the site itself, however, I think a further analysis of the site and its findings from other sources would improve it much more.