User:Catghoyt/Crow Canyon Archaeological District/Metomlinson 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? Catghoyt
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Crow Canyon Archaeological District

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead has been updated with additional information about the Crow Canyon Archaeological District, and the rock art and petroglyphs present there.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead does not include any information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is appropriately detailed while also being very concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all of the information added is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the content seems to be up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content that does not belong, however, as this is a draft, I am sure there is content that is missing or that will be added as it continues to be drafted.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, this topic is about the archaeological site of Navajo people, which is an underrepresented population.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the claims are neutral and not biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? It does not appear that any viewpoints are under or overrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The sources do seem to be reliable, as they are mostly government sources, but I would suggest looking at some journal articles as well!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content is clear, easy to real, and very well-written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the content is broken down into four main sections that help lead the reader through the article.

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

N/A; no images present


 * 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.


 * 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, the original article is bare bones, and the content added greatly enhances it. It offers a more complete and comprehensive view of Crow Canyon.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is written very well, and retrieved from good sources! It's also very neutral in tone, and expands heavily on the content from the original article. The formatting of the article is also very well done.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think just adding some more journal articles and continuing to add content would be my suggestions to improving the article. Overall, it looks really great so far, good job!