User:Gooutsideanddothings/Kondoa Irangi Rock Paintings/Phiferv514 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? Gooutsideanddothings
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Kondoa Rock-Art Sites

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the first sentence is strong and concise, but it still covers what the site is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the Lead needs to include a sentence or section that discusses how ethics in archaeology are related to the Kondoa Rock-Art Sites, and rather than putting Dr. Nash's discoveries under "Paintings," the author should either make a separate section on archaeologists or make Dr. Nash his own section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead includes the dates of the paintings that are later mentioned in the article. It also discusses the overall patterns found among the art.  It was interesting that the author included the portion on how the rock sites are used today in the Lead, but this is not mentioned later in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Overall, the Lead is overly detailed. The section is supposed to simply be an overview of the site, but it instead goes into greater detail than necessary about when the site was formed, etc.  Therefore, in reevaluating the Lead, the author should consider reducing its size and including a sentence on ethics in archaeology, and instead he/she should put the more detailed information in its own section.  Furthermore, the Lead does not contain information presented later in the article, including the significance of Dr. Nash.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the Lead looks strong. However, the incorporation of a sentence or two about the relevance of Dr. Nash and the importance in ethics in archaeology could be beneficial. Furthermore, it should be more of a summary of the site, so perhaps the author could include the specific dates in a separate section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content in the article is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The section on ethics in archaeology seems unrelated. The author should incorporate in a sentence or two about the importance and relatedness of that section.

Content evaluation
The content is interesting and well-written. However, as mentioned previously, the author should include a sentence in the Lead discussing how ethics in archaeology is related. I also really liked how the author included a sentence from Nelson Mandela.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there does not seem to be any bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The discoveries of Dr. Nash seem to be emphasized in the article. Perhaps the incorporation of at least one other main archaeologist on the site could be beneficial.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The sources seem to be reliable, with some of the references from UNESCO itself.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The author uses a very limited amount of references. It seems as though there is probably much more literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the link appear to work.

Sources and references evaluation
The author could afford to put in more sources from journals. Also, it appears that two out of the seven sources are from Dr. Nash, so there should be more of a variety.

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?
 * No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, except it looks a little strange how the article goes from "Paintings" to "Ethics in archaeology." The author should look into providing a transitional paragraph.

Organization evaluation
The article was done well organizationally. However, there could be better transitions, and he/she could create an independent section on dates.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the article includes a map and an example of the art it mentions.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the captions are clear and concise.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, I liked how they put the picture first and the map second. It makes the organization look better.

Images and media evaluation
The images used picked well. For instance, the use of a map is helpful in allowing the reader to locate where the site is, and I liked how the author incorporated in an actual picture from the site.

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?
 * Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * No, there should be more academic journals included in the article.
 * 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?
 * Yes, the overall page was done well.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes.

New Article Evaluation
The article looks great. The images selected were perfect for the page, and the article is very detailed.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The author has added a considerable amount of information to the page. Due to this, I, the reader, now have better understanding of the sites, their location, and their landscape.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content was well-written and concise. Overall, the author did a great job.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The author could discuss specific styles of paintings used at the site.

Overall evaluation
The article does well in many aspects, including its accurate information, discussion of the landscape of the site, specific sites, and specific discoveries from a certain archaeologist. However, the overall organization of the site could be better done, including the section on ethics in archaeology. Furthermore, the use of other archaeologists' finds could be relevant to expanding the article. However, the article was written well and was not too technical, which is important for a successful Wikipedia page.