User:Dmitter/Grave goods/Heo16 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) Dmitter
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Dmitter/Grave goods

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes, most of the work done by Dmitter was done to the lead.
 * 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? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? it is brief and concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes, it was added to the lead, which mostly reflects what will be seen in the article
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes, purely factual statements that have no bias for a specific point of view.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * 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, very neutral

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes, Dmitter includes two new citations
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes, one from 2017 and the other from 2014.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes the link to funerary art, votive deposit, archeology and anthropology all worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes, very concise.
 * 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

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes there are 4 images provided as examples of grave goods.
 * Are images well-captioned? yes, but the style of captioning is a little inconsistent throughout the article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

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
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Dmitter made the intro lead more informative. before it was vague and did not introduce the reader in to the information they would be seeing within the article. Dmitter added general information to the lead, which gives a greater idea of what was to be seen in the article. They also added 2 sources to the article, which are unbiased, reliable sources that overall benefitted the page.
 * How can the content added be improved? while what Dmitter added had no problems, they could possibly clean up the article a bit more. For example, one of the pictures has a caption with an in depth citation of who did the excavation, when, etc. while the others simple have a brief title. Dmitter can potentially make these captions more alike, adding more organization to the article.