User:DeathOnArrakis/Ötzi/Rag138 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? DeathOnArrakis
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: No Draft

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * no, they have not added or changed anything on the article as of this time.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * the article Lead is solid and concise
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * this is something that could be better, you can give a small section explanation for the lead section giving an overview of them
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Not from my investigation of the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * concise

Lead evaluation
Overall I think that the lead is pretty solid like most of the article, the article is a B grading and is well formed at this point.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes and the talk page is pretty detailed with conversations about controversial parts and making the editors work together
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * there may be some new updates to some of the questions on the talk page such as the last meal or the time he was alive, maybe you can try to research those specific topics to see if you can give answers to the questions
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * not really it seems very well put together with significant collaboration
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * not really the only real issue at play is the border dispute between the two countries but that is actually addressed in the article

Content evaluation
Overall the Content of the article is solid and all relates well to the topic of Otzi, I would possibly try to find better sourcing on some of the subsections because some links to sources are broken and some dont go to a source that is easily related to the points they are sourced to.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Very, the articles talk page seems to have been pretty involved in making sure of this aspect
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * not really the article has gone through significant editing eliminating this according to the talk page
 * 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?
 * no

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall I think the tone of the article has been completely neutral thanks to heavy editing an collaboration on the talk page.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * there are a ton of sources on the page, maybe see if most are still current?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes; look at the links answer
 * Are the sources current?
 * as suggested I would maybe just do a quick check of a bunch
 * 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?
 * many of the links a few of the sources for the article actually took me to unrelated articles about other bodies found in the region I would see if you can find some that support claims made in the "Curse" section, "Cause of Death", and "Body" sections.

Sources and references evaluation
Overall the intext linking is solid but as mentioned some sourcing links are not as relatable to the topics they are sourced to should be, maybe these can be updated with some research and allow them to really reflect the claims of the article better.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * the article is very well written
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * none that came to my attention
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The organizational sense seems very solid, I would probably look elsewhere to make the edits

Overall evaluation
My final thoughts on this article is that it will likely be somewhat difficult to work with, it is already very well written, well sourced and the talk page was very involved, I would highly suggest that you look into the sources relatability to the claims they source to and see if you can find better sources relating to the points. I would also see about some of the places of interest being linked within the article as that seemed to be lacking in key points such as the research universities that conducted certain tests, those would be a nice addition, as well as their specific research publications that are talked of would be great to be sourced to. Good luck!