User:CJBissell/Battlefield archaeology/Aes1691 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? (provide username) CJBissell
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: link

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes! I'm really impressed by the work that you did on the lead
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes, and it was your original work which improved the article
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead is more of a general overview rather than providing brief descriptions of major sections
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes! well done on that-- I appreciate that you comment on 20th century confident because "battlefield archaeology" makes me think of the civil war or world war II and I think that it's important to remind the audience that this is a topic relevant to more recent conflict as well
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise-- I would probably argue that including a brief description of the article's major sections would make the lead overly detailed and I like it how it is

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? It seems like someone with a lot of background in World War I did most of the editing for the article as it currently appears but not much else has been added
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, I don't notice any citations or information that isn't relevant or up to date. The addition of a history section was particularly helpful to the overall quality of the article
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There isn't content that doesn't belong but I suspect that there is a lot of content missing

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, and well researched
 * 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? not that I can tell

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? New content is not backed up and I suspect that the author is going to go through and add new information and then go through and add sources for that information and simply hasn't gotten to that step yet
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? not applicable for new content
 * Are the sources current? not applicable for new content-- true of existing content in the article
 * Check a few links. Do they work? sources present in the existing article are current and work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes, I think that it has a scholarly and encyclopedia-like tone
 * 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! I liked the addition of a history section but would suggest the addition of more sections-- as I'm sure you know!

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media NOT APPLICABLE


 * 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?

For New Articles Only
'''If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. NOT APPLICABLE'''


 * 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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes!! I really think that you've done a good job and that if you continue to expand the article and then add sources that you will have done a good job of contributing to wikipedia
 * What are the strengths of the content added? overall writing style and thoroughness
 * How can the content added be improved? simply has not been completed and lacks sources

Overall evaluation
I really appreciate the work that you've done so far on your Wikipedia article. The most obvious space for improvement is sources and citations. Otherwise, it is clear that you've put a lot of work into the content that you've added so far and you've done a good job!