User:C99L35/Gona, Ethiopia/ACebeiro Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

C99L35


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Gona, Ethiopia (Draft)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Gona, Ethiopia

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
I like that even though you have written a brief introduction, you are still able to convey essential information about the site. However, you could add some more information here just in case the reader does not want to spend more time looking into the article main body in depth. For example, you could add information about the most important findings at Gona and the current importance of the site to the archaeological community.

Content
I really like that you have sections talking about the history behind the site and the important milestones. I think those kind of comments are not as common when talking about sites (we tend to just care about the archaeology), so I read the historical part with real interest.

Something you might want to change (just to follow the convention in the field) is to put the names of all of the hominin species in italics (I have noticed some of them are not in italics, for example Ardipithecus ramidus and Homo erectus in the lead section). Moreover, also looking into convention, once you talk about one species with the genus and species names in full you can abbreviate the genus. For example, ''Ar. ramidus''. I have seen you do this, but not with consistency. Once you start, you have to continue doing it throughout.

Just in case you want to expand the article a bit more, it could be interesting to have a final section contextualizing Gona in relation with the other sites that are located in the area and with the study of human evolution as a whole.

Tone and Balance
Overall, you maintain a neutral point of view giving the reader information and different perspectives on debates associated with Gona. However, sometimes there are some hints of bias in your arguments or at least your words could suggest that you agree more with one perspective than another. For example, in the sentence Many archaeologists who study the Oldowan believe that the development of this simple, but complex form of technological behavior in making and using stone tools was a major catalyst in human evolution and the development of human culture as a whole, the use of words such as "major catalyst" is not neutral.

Sources and References
Check that you have all of your citations in Wikipedia format. I think you could add some more Wikipedia page links and citations when you make claims about other sites and implications for Gona. For example, under "Gona's early Oldowan Archaeological Sites and their Implications" section I would add the following:

Although the Gona assemblages are no longer the oldest since the discovery of the Lomekwian dated to 3.3 mya [ADD HARMAND ET AL. 2015 AS CITATION], they have been very influential in archaeological research on how hominins used and made Oldowan tools [ADD CITATIONS], and the possible implications this had on hominin evolution and has helped clarify the evolution of technological behavior [ADD CITATIONS].

This way you could expand your reference list a bit more (although is already good!) and make the impact of your article even bigger by being connected to other Wikipedia sites.

Furthermore, I have noticed that sometimes you do not include the name of authors and the articles in Wikipedia style. Here: In 2005, Semaw et al. published on fossil discoveries from deposits that are part of the As Duma fault at the Western Gona Margin, just say "Semaw and colleagues published...".

Organization
For the article body I would start by talking about the History of Archaeology at the Gona Paleoanthropological Research Project and then follow it up with the Geography and Geology. This way you can really contextualize the site to the reader. I would then have "Archaeology" as a Heading and the section about the Oldowan and the Acheulean both as "Sub-heading 1" as if they were subsections within Archaeology.

Furthermore, I would do a re-read of the article to check for sentences that are not easy to follow grammatically to try to make them simpler. I have also seen some misspelled words.

Images and Media
I think adding some images could help improve the article by drawing the attention of the reader and clarifying some points about the text. I would start by adding a map showing the location of Gona in relation with the important locations you mention in your text. In particular, this would really help to not get confused or lost when reading the "Geography" section of the article. Moreover, the only image that already exists in the current version of the article does not really help to understand the geographical location of the site. Furthermore, it could be a good idea to add information (especially coordinates) surrounding this map and the site in a similar way to what they did in this article: Olduvai Gorge.