User:Amyxlam/Booker Site/Ben arnold6 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? (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? Maybe, hard to tell
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No, could use a more inclusive beginning sentence that discusses the site more broadly not just stating it's location
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not really, the article is super short therefore there it doesn't;t really go into detail breaking them into sections
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's pretty concise, could maybe be a little bit more broad then go into details further in the piece

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? No --> only one source from 2008
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, states facts and doesn't pick a side
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Possibly, only one source from the Illinois archaeological association but it's not accessible
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, probably a lot more sources on this site, esp. if their are so many sites located around the area
 * Are the sources current? No, only one source that's 12 years old
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I noticed
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes the excavation section is a nice touch, but need to go in a lot more detail about the site itself and not just it's excavation

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No

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? No
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? No
 * 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? No
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No, but they do list a town name and a cardinal direction which may make it too easy to find the site for looters

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, but still needs a lot more topics discussed
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Idk can't tell if anything was added
 * How can the content added be improved? More in depth about the potential lives the people in the area lived in the Mississippian era