User:Chattrrboxx/John Mulvaney/Cerbzzz Peer Review

General info
Chattrrboxx
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Chattrrboxx/sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):John Mulvaney

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.)

The lead section isn't edited at all. There should be some in line citations from each claim to be considered a complete draft. There are some sentences that don't really seem relevant to the topic (an example in Fromms Landing). Some of the new content directly relates to Aboriginal Australians which are a marginalized group. Viewpoints that Mulvaney are arguing against isn't really explained in depth. 3 sources come from Mulvaney himself, additionally it is hard to check the veracity of these claims as there are no in line citations. There are several spelling errors in the first paragraph, additional writing, grammar, and organization suggestions are below.

I think that Devon Downs shouldn't be its own section as it isn't his work, rather a new section on his theory of complex cultures could be made to expand on the theory while tying in his other work with the theory and his reflection on Devon Downs.

The wording of "The excavation work was hoped to support the date people originated in Australia" is a little confusing. "Aboriginal past" is a little vague too some elaboration on that term would be helpful. I also noticed in the original article that Fromms Landing is mentioned so I wonder if the drafted changes is an expansion of that or will that sentence be deleted from the article. The line of Fromms Landing becoming a training site isn't relevant unless Mulvaney had some kind of influence on that. The last line is also vague, what was the name of the other site and where is it? How was societal and cultural succession different from Tungawa? What about time and stone tools needed to be understood? What diverse measuring techniques were needed?

How did his work influenced Aboriginal conservation in Victoria? The "accumulate more fieldwork" in the second sentence isn't really concise. Which shelter was the Aboriginal man found in?

Why is lack of aboriginal representation in quotation marks? (If it's from a source an in-line citation here would be appropriate). The political activism paragraph is written more like an essay than the typical Wikipedia tone. What was the main aim of his activism and what did he achieve?