User:Dhern041/La Ferrassie 1/Cgarc070 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? (provide username)
 * Dhern041
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Dhern041/La Ferrassie 1
 * editing article: La Ferrassie 1

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The Lead does include an introductory sentence that describes the main topic of the article. It clearly states what La Ferrassie 1 is mostly known for and goes on to further explain other key details of the topic. I did notice a small grammatical error that can easily be corrected in the introductory sentence. The Lead does tie into the other sections of the article. Good job! I believe each sentence of the Lead correlates with each subheading of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The content sounds to be up-to-date because of the word choice. "A new multi-method luminescence dating" reveals that this information is relevant and up-to-date.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article's content is neutral. It does not state any opinions or try to persuade in any way. There is a sentence that says that the studies did help researchers which can maybe be delete to keep the article's information solely about La Ferrassie 1. Besides that, I believe all the information is unbiased.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are placed correctly throughout the article. I checked a couple of links and they all work and are from reliable journals or databases like Jstor. All the sources utilized correlate with the article's topic. More than three sources were used which is great that more reliable information was found. All the sources are cited correctly and effectively used in the article!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article is very easy to read. It is divided up into different sections or subheading and they are all relatively short (in a good way) and straight to the point. Complicated words that I did not know were defined which was very helpful. I only noticed one grammatical error. Great work!

Images and Media
Guiding questions: 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. '''


 * 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is well thought out. It was not at all difficult to read or understand. Each subheading contributed to the flow of the article. The strengths are that the sources used are reliable and up-to-date. The information is not biased as it states no opinions. I suggest deleting the sentence where it talks about researchers to improve it slightly. Since the current published article on La Ferrassie 1 is very short, all the information is important to be added onto the original post.