User:Decussate/History of Archaeology in the Philippines/Shaylavi1234 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?  Decussate, Nikitabatabai
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:History of archaeology in the Philippines

Lead
Guiding questions:

The lead reflects the topic of the article and includes an introductory sentence that clearly describes the article. The lead does give an overall view and look into the rest of the major sections, but does not mention all the components mentioned in the article. The lead reflects the work and is concise.


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:

The content is all relevant to the topic, "archaeology of the Philippines". Content looks like it is up-to-data. The website says there are issues with the links and content... I think it all belongs and ties together.


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

I feel that the information is fairly neutral, the Professor Acabado section may be biased...The Acabado section I feel is biased, but I am not sure. Also feel like there are many more projects that were not mentioned. I don't think this is a persuasive article.


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

All the information looks cited and as though it has a good backing. The sources reflect the topics being written about in the article, they also seem current. A little lacking, I feel like there should me more. Links that I clicked on, the names, worked.


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:

The content is clear, short, concise, and on topic. Overall easy to read the way it is broken up. I did not see errors regarding grammar and spelling when going over the article. It is ell organized but I feel like it could have a better flow from topic to topic organization.


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media
Guiding questions:

There was no media added to this page that enhanced the understanding of the topic.


 * If your peer added images or media


 * 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.

I think it meets the requirement but the website is saying that there are issues that need to be fixed. There is a good amount of sources and it represents the literature, but this is more broad of a topic so I feel like there could have been more sources. It follows the pattern of other articles. It links to other articles so that it is more discoverable.


 * 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:

Overall a good article. easy to read and gives the right information. I would rate this as a medium to high quality article. Overall it seems complete and like the students knew what they were doing. It could be improved overall if it had more information.


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?