User:Eirbouh/Khirbat Faynan/Aboulter 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)
 * Eirbouh
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Khirbat Faynan

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 contains a good introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's main topic, including the common name, other names that the site is known by, and the general location. The lead goes on to describe the type of site, who the first investigation/excavation was lead by, and a little about the time period that the site was in use.
 * I enjoyed reading about the history of the site throughout different time periods and into the present in the article, but I think that the lead doesn't necessarily set up the rest of the article as it doesn't provide a brief description of the article's major sections. The article also doesn't go further into the investigation/excavation history that is mentioned in the lead.
 * The lead is good and just requires a few edits. It should contain a brief description relating to the articles major sections, and the article itself should mention some of the things in the lead or be cut out.

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

 * As mentioned in the lead evaluation, some content mentioned in the lead is missing and should be added. Some content that is added should be mentioned in the lead. I think it would be good to expand on the excavation history and what was found during those investigations to support some of the claims made (analysis).
 * I like the chronological order of the site at different points in time and I like the mentions of how the site relates to the Bible.

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 content is neutral's and focused on giving details/facts which is very good. I think that some sections should be added and some of the already present sections can be expanded to include more detail.

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

 * It appears that the content is backed up with sources that are all from the last decades, which is good. I appreciate that there are six references, which appears to be a good amount.
 * The National Geographic link doesn't work.
 * I would be careful using a lot of .com sites. Some of the sources come from sources that are more media focused and not peer reviewed (such as the Daily Beast).
 * I think source 1 is the best and it appears to go into detail about the excavation and following analysis that I think could be very useful to use in order to expand on your 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

 * I think that the content is clear and easy to read for the average person, which is good. There weren't any grammatical error that I caught.
 * The article so far has only one main section ("History and archaeology") with different subheadings, which I think is very smart. This section briefly describes the chronological history of the site through time, which is nice and something that I will consider incorporating into by article. I do think that these subheadings can go a bit more in depth about the history.
 * The article does need more sections. Particularly about the excavation history and analysis of artifacts/ecofacts.

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?

Images and media evaluation

 * No images have been added yet. Though the addition of images could help enhance the reader's experience.

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?

New Article Evaluation

 * The article is supported by 6 different references. At least two of them are reliables, but the others should probably be omitted or replaced by more reliable sources that can further enhance this article's topic.
 * The article does follow a chronological order that is popular for historical articles.
 * The article contains many links to different articles to make it more discoverable and enhance the reader's experience.

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

 * The article is a very good start and includes features and information that help to bring clarity to the subject and the organization of the article itself.
 * Some areas to improve would be the addition of multiple sections that talk more about the excavation and analysis to emphasize the archaeological aspect of the topic. Some references should also be updated to more reliable peer reviewed sources.