User:Ell.S.'22/Chiquihuite cave/Neil Givens Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Ell.S.'22


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Chiquihuite Cave
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Chiquihuite cave

Evaluate the drafted changes
I am excited to see someone focusing on Chiquihuite cave, I wrote one of blog posts on it and found it very interesting. I think that there are several format/grammatical points that could be improved in your draft. First, I think that you are putting in citations too frequently. In the past I have been told that if a paragraph is all referencing the same source, only one citation at the end is needed. I am not entirely sure what the policy is on Wikipedia, but it is something to look into. Additionally, some of the archaeologists mentioned could use more introduction. Dr. Chatters is given no introduction, so it is somewhat jarring to have them be referenced with no context. You should eventually include a sentence detailing who they are and why their opinion on the subject is relevant. I also think that more pronouns and fewer direct references to the names of the scientists would increase the readability of the page.

My other main concern about your draft is its balance. You cite one paper 17 times and another 6 times. While this paper may be a very good source on the subject, citing one source more than all of the others combined leads me to worry about the balance of viewpoints being presented. The page is supposed to detail the cave itself, rather than one or two papers on the cave. Another concern that I have that I think you should lookout for, despite not being too problematic yet, is the page becoming a detailed summary of an argument between two archaeologists. So far I think you are fine in this regard, but I think ideally the page should have more viewpoints represented than Chatters and Ardelean fighting over the findings in the cave. Overall, I like your planned additions and think they fit well with the current organization of the article.