User:C.lof22/Mortuary archaeology/Amh285 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? C.lof22
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Mortuary archaeology

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has not been updated because no new content has been added yet.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead includes an introductory sentence that provides a clear definition of mortuary archaeology, which is important since I am sure many people do not know exactly what "mortuary archaeology" is. Maybe even adding some information about what bioarchaeology is in general could make it even clearer.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Burial excavation and creating a biological profile appear to be the two main overarching sections of the article. I feel like these topics could be mentioned more in the lead to give the reader an idea of their importance.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Overall it doesn't. Conflict archaeology is mentioned once though and sounds pretty interesting so maybe that could be a cool section to add to the article since I don't see it in the rest of the article yet!
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise and well written.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * No content has been added yet.
 * Is the content added up-to-date
 * No content has been added yet
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * It would be great if more could be added about conflict archaeology and bioarchaeology! It is mentioned in the lead but is not explained in the article so I feel like adding a section about this could be interesting and create a more well rounded article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No it does not.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content of the article is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The writing is very explanatory and does not seem to contain biases or opinions meant to sway the reader.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The two main sections are "Burial Excavation" and "Creating a Biological Profile". I feel like there is a bit of an imbalance between coverage of the two topics. The biological profile section is much longer and detailed. In particular, in the subsection of "Burial Excavation" called "Grave Goods" maybe some examples of what specific types of goods are buried with the dead depending on gender or culture. Many of the subsections for "Burial Excavation" could potentially benefit from adding an example from a specific culture to illustrate their points.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No the content added is neutral and informative.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No new content has been added yet.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are very thorough and there are 55 of them.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most of the sources are from around 2002-2011 so they are relatively current but not super current. Maybe finding some more current sources and adding more recent information could benefit this article.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources are somewhat diverse but there are a few of the same authors that are cited many times.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links I checked worked!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content of the article is easy to read and very clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I do not see 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?
 * The sections and sub-sections are clear and well-organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is only one small image and it is hard to see what the image is depicting. Maybe adding more images or increasing the size of the images could help to better illustrate the main topics of the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The caption of the image is not very clear to me. I feel like this vagueness could be resolved by emphasizing how they are using the skeletal remains to gather information from the deceased person's life.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I feel like there might need to be more images and the one that is there would benefit from being enlarged so it is easier to see what is going on in the picture.

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?
 * The list of sources is extensive; there are 55 sources. Even though there are many sources, though, many seem to come from the same author or similar universities/journals so I feel like the sources need to be diversified.
 * 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?
 * Yes it does.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * The article does link to other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The article has not had new content added.
 * What are the strengths of the content?
 * The content is very organized and informative. It gives the reader clear definitions of the topics.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Adding more pictures to illustrate the most important topics would definitely help to make the article's talking points even clearer and more understandable! I also believe it would be helpful to add a subsection about conflict archaeology. Many sections of this article tend to only give definitions of certain terms and move on. Adding more examples to illustrate the terms such as "grave goods", "conflict archaeology", "primary/secondary/bundle burial", and the types of trauma mentioned at the end of the article would help the article feel more complete