User:BeeCandelaria/Monte Verde/Kaljumaegi Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

BeeCandelaria


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BeeCandelaria/Monte_Verde?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Monte Verde

Evaluate the drafted changes
Your decision to restructure the article to center the findings is apt, and makes for a professional, thematically sound article. It flows well, and honestly makes logical sense to me: of course you'd want the facts about the site delineated prior to adding any sections regarding controversy stemming out of said facts. This is good, as is the section on MV-I. I may suggest adding another source as both that and your Associated Sites sections are reliant on Dillehay 2015, but as someone who is also writing about a relatively understudied site, I can sympathize with the existing literature being slim. As for your section on associated sites, this is really well done, and provides a pertinent and informative elaboration on lifeways at Monte Verde. It places the site in a richer context, which is always appreciated in archaeology, so well done on this front! Just some housekeeping issues: there is a typo in the third sentence ("Dillehay and his team excavted...") and the first sentence could be cited, but other than that you've got some good, relevant information that -- again -- provides a continuation of the article at large and exhibits a clear writing style and neutral tone. Good work.