User:Eirbouh/Khirbat Faynan/Yyem3 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 includes a concise and clear introductory sentence that describes the article's topic. There is somewhat a brief description of the article's major sections. I think this area could be developed and refined. On a different note, the lead contains some redundant statements that can be easily fixed. Overall, the lead is mostly concise, so good job.

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
- All the content added is relevant to the topic and added up-to-date. In addition, all of the content belongs to the topic.

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 added is neutral. There are no biased claims. No viewpoints are overrepresented or 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
- Sources are current and thorough. The links work as well.

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 content is concise and easy to read. There are no grammatical and spelling errors. The content is well-organized. For instance, there are sections that reflect the major points of the topic. However, I think you could expand more on some sections.

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 or media

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 the Wikipedia's Notability requirements. The list of sources is not that exhaustive. There are probably more available literature on the subject. The article links to other articles a lot.

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 not complete. I think more sections could be added to make the article more complete. For example, a section about the excavations that have happened at this archaeological site.

- One strength of the content is conciseness. Another strength are the sources and references. Because there are a good amount of sources, the article is more credible.

- The content can be improved by adding more sections that provide a complete description of different aspects involved with the archaeological site such as excavations, artifacts, etc.