User:CKC29/Border Cave/C99L35 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

CKC29


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:CKC29/Border Cave


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Border Cave

Lead
The lead section of this article is both thorough and concise. The first sentence does a good job providing a description of the site that also reflects its significance in African archaeology more broadly. The following paragraphs in the lead section give an overview of the article’s content that helps situate the reader by outlining the most important aspects of the topic without overloading information.

Content
I appreciate the way that the added content has been synthesized and summarized. The “Archaeological Findings” section was an invaluable addition as it allowed for the separation of the archaeological findings and the interpretive debates, which were originally addressed together. In general, the content added provides a level of detail that was lacking the initial article.

Tone and Balance
To maintain a neutral tone, you either explicitly named the researchers who had put forward a particular argument and/or you used language like “suggests” or “assume”. A good example of this is the discussion of the ELSA organic tools, specifically the qualifying sentence “The functions of these tools remain speculative”.

Sources and References
In terms of sourcing, the way the source material is synthesized suggests that you have a command of the source material. One area of possible improvement is to make sure that all the interpretive statements being made are attached to a reference, which in most instances they are. The one place where this is not the case is in the following excerpt from the MSA fauna subsection: “Border Cave’s faunal remains also do not show evidence of carnivore tooth marks. Some researchers suggest that this evidence is enough to claim that humans were the main individuals who brought these materials back to site”. Providing a citation and/or identifying information would make the phrase “some researchers” less vague. I understand that this interpretive statement is very general, but it might come off as an unsupported statement if someone did not have any background in the topic.

Organization
In my opinion, one of the greatest strengths of this article is how the article’s organization and synthesis of the source material lends to an informative, yet accessible and concise presentation of the site. The final topic section on debates is exemplary of the strengths in the way the article has been organized. This section combined the original article’s sections on the “MSA to ELSA” and “San material culture”. In the first subsection regarding applicability of ethnographic analogy provided additional context for readers regarding the archaeological interpretations of the ELSA organic tools that were presented earlier in the article. By providing this context the reader gains insight into what underlies the interpretations that were presented in the earlier section. The second subsection spoke to the importance /notability of the site by situating the site within the broader context of the African archaeological record in a way that did not compromise neutrality and did not introduce bias.

Images and Media
The inclusion of images of flora and fauna in the environment and archaeological findings section helps the reader gain a sense of the environment that could not be gleaned from words alone. Thus, these images scaffold the readers’ comprehension of the content within these sections. The image captioned “overview of Ngwavuna River from Border Cave” situates the site within the surrounding landscape, which adds to the holistic picture of the site the article develops.

Overall Impressions
Overall, I think this article is very well done. As I have mentioned before, the command of the source material, the ability to synthesize the material in a way that is both informational and accessible, and the scaffold that the organization of the page lends to this synthesis makes for a strong article. The article provides an informative picture of Border Cave that is a significant improvement from the original article. My one suggestion is to provide a reference for the statement I highlighted in the “Sources and References” section of my evaluation.