User:Druliasdean/Cadotte Site/Robertovaldovinos 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? (Druliasdean)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Druliasdean/Cadotte Site

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? no
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation
Lead paragraph makes no reference to excavations or archaeological artifacts, that is completely missing from the lead.

Content

Guiding questions:


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

Content evaluation
from reading this I don't know what the goal of the people who excavated this site was, what were they looking for or hoping to find?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
Content has a nice neutral tone, I did not feel like the writer was attempting to persuade me in any way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? no
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? no
 * Are the sources current? n/a
 * Check a few links. Do they work? n/a

Sources and references evaluation
No sources on article and entire bibliography page is missing

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation
The content is very well organized and east to follow

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no
 * Are images well-captioned? n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

Images and media evaluation
No images

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? no sources
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? n/a
 * 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? yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? no

New Article Evaluation
It is a well written out new article, is still missing a few things but what is there is good.

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? facts, neutral, relevant
 * How can the content added be improved? The content still has some gaps, those need to be filled in