User:Amyxlam/Booker Site/Yyem3 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?
 * 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 introductory sentence is concise and clear. However, the introductory sentence does not fully describe the article's topic. I think you should briefly mention the burned fourteenth century Mississippian house structure and the four associated pit features. Your lead somewhat includes a brief description of the excavation section. I think more could be added.

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 added is relevant to the topic. In addition, the content seems to be up-to-date. Everything seems to be okay with the content area.

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 added is neutral. No claims appear biased toward a particular position. There isn't any viewpoints that can be overrepresented or underrepresented. The content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

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 source is current and thorough. All the links work.

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 concise, clear, and easy to read. The only grammatical error I noticed was the repeating of determination of botanical analysis. I think the content could be broken down into a couple more sections. In addition, you can expand on these sections.

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
- No images are used.

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
- The article is only supported by 1 reliable source. If you could find another source that would be nice. You have a couple of links to other articles, which is good. If you could find any other ways to link your article that would be nice.

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
- The strengths of the content include conciseness, organization, and unbiasedness.

- The content can be improved by adding a couple more sections of related information. To be specific, a section could be dedicated to the features and artifacts of Booker site.