User:Gcecchi2/Ban Kao/Cdunn23 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Gcecchi2


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Ban Kao Sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Ban Kao

Lead
The lead in the existing Ban Kao article needs work. While the lead tells us where Ban Kao is and the population of Ban Kao, it does not give a solid overview of the site and the information that's to come. I feel like I couldn't just read the lead and have a basic understanding of Ban Kao, so the lead section could use some improving. Maybe elaborate on the existing lead to provide the reader with a summary of the site. I also think the lead could give a better overview of what is going to be discussed further in the article.

Content
There has not been all that much content added to the page at this point, but I think the addition in the geography section that highlights the Khwae Noi River was a good detail to add. It is mentioned later on in the archaeological sites part of the article so it's good context to add. The addition of the "Archaeological Site" sub-section was also smart as it provides context and a bit more about the actual archaeological work being done. It also provides context to some of the information already existing in the article. I did notice that the sources for the content added were from 1968 so I'm unsure on if this information is up to date or not. Overall, I think the content additions so far have been well done and have added vital details to the existing article, although more information about the site is needed to provide a comprehensive overview of Ban Kao.

Tone and Balance
The content added is neutral and I don't think any of it has a strong bias or tries to persuade the reader. The additions stuck to the facts and didn't interject opinions or have any biased tones.

Sources and References
So far there are only two sources used and both are from 1968. This makes me question whether the information in the article is completely up to date. The information that was added from each article accurately depicts what the source was saying and didn't represent the sources falsely. Overall, I'd say that more current sources are needed, as well as more information in general. The two sources that were used for the added information were used well though, and everything was cited properly.

Organization
I think the writing is well done and I don't see many grammatical errors. The added sections are easy to follow. There is not much to organize in the article draft, but I do think that having the geography before all the other sections makes sense. The reader has to be oriented in space before they can start taking in information so I think it's smart to start with that. From there, I think the organization is fine, perhaps not the strongest, but it works. I think that having the history and then the archaeological site part works well, but I think you could also rearrange these two sections to make them flow into the existing article better.

Images and Media
No new images or media have been added to the site. On the existing site there's already three images, but I think more images of the site itself and the archaeological expeditions would add to the article.

Overall Impressions
I think the content added has made the existing article more complete and has provided important context for the existing sections. It is well written with a neutral tone that reads as a Wikipedia article should. The lead and sources need improving, as well as more information about the site and administrations, but these additions are a good start to improving the Ban Kao site.