User:Eirbouh/Khirbat Faynan/Ajdbuendia 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 looks really good. The author describes the most important background details and mentions information that they are going to discuss later on in the article. Additionally, the lead is concise and well written.

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 that is present is relevant and up-to-date. There is no content that doesn't belong.

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 with no particular attempt to skew or persuade a reader's thoughts. There is no bias and no topics that are over-/underrepresented.

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 author provides many sources in their reference section. They appear to reflect a lot of the available literature on the topic and the sources seem to be current. The 4th link (Excavations at the Site of an Ancient Techno-Revolution) did not work. I was redirected to an AT&T search page.

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 well organized. They include subsections within the excavation and archaeology section that break up the sites history in periods of time. Within each time period, there is also supporting evidence from excavations to back up whatever is said.

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
N/A

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 meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements. The sources cited appear to accurately represent the available literature on the topic. The pattern of the article is generally similar to other articles of this sort of topic. There are many links within the article to make it 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
I think that the content in the article improves the overall quality of the article. It seems to be much more complete. The strongest thing about the content added is that it's very detailed without being biased. It's a good neutral article. I think that there could possibly be more information put into it but it's definitely very strong where it is now.