User:Gruwellj/Göbekli Tepe/Rosemary Bencher 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? Joshua Gruwell  (User:Gruwellj)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Sandbox: User:Gruwellj/Göbekli Tepe
 * Article: Göbekli Tepe

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? -- I see that Joshua added new content to the "Interpretation" section of the article. The lead hasn't yet been updated to reflect this but I don't think it necessarily needs to be since this info is specific to the section.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? -- Yes, the introductory sentence is very clear and describes the article's topic concisely. Perhaps the definition of "tell" could be further elaborated on.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? -- The lead includes a "Contents" table which guides the reader through the article and it's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? -- The lead includes relevant information that is further elaborated upon in the following sections of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? -- The lead is concise and not overly detailed.

Lead evaluation
The lead adequately reflects the most important information and the major sections of the article. The introductory sentence is well written and concise. The lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections and a table of contents. Overall it is an excellent lead. I do think it would benefit from clarification of the definition and significance of the word "tell." I also think elements from the "Importance" section could be incorporated into the lead. It would be good to know why the site is of such interest early on in reading.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? -- Yes, the content Joshua added about how/when game (gazelles) may have been used at Göbekli Tepe is relevant to the topic. It fits in seamlessly with the rest of the article. Well done.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? -- Yes, the content added is properly sourced. The source is recent from August 2013 and appears to be academic although there is no link to the source.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? -- I see no content that does not belong or any which effects the cohesiveness of the article as a whole.

Content evaluation
Overall the content in the article is relevant to the topic. I see that one user has already written on the Talk Page about updating some aspects of the article but nothing he mentioned was added by Joshua. The sentence and source that Joshua added is up-to-date and relevant. There is nothing that seems out of place.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? -- Yes, the content added is neutral and informative.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? -- No, there are no biased claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? -- The Interpretation section of the article seems to draw heavily on the findings of Klaus Schmidt, the original discoverer and excavator of the site.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? -- No, the content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall this article maintains a neutral tone and is well-balanced. The Interpretation section of the article seems to draw heavily on the findings of Klaus Schmidt, the original discoverer and excavator of the site. That section might benefit from some different perspectives from other excavations if there have been any. This may not be the case because the article says that less than 5% of the site has been excavated. Other than that there doesn't appear to be any significant viewpoints left out. Each section's length is appropriate and there are no sections that seem unnecessary. The article doesn't attempt to persuade the reader in any one direction.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? -- Yes, the content added by Joshua is backed up by a reliable secondary source from the text World Archaeology by Nadja Pöllath.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? -- It is early in the editing process to say whether or not the contributed sources are thorough considering only one source has been added.
 * Are the sources current? -- Yes, this source is current from August 2013.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? -- There is no link to the source. I am assuming that this information appeared in print.

Sources and references evaluation
The source provided by Joshua is an appropriate secondary source. It could benefit from a link to the original article/text if possible.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? -- Yes, the content that has been added is concise, clear and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? -- No grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? -- The content that Joshua has added so far is not long enough to be broken down into sections or major points.

Organization evaluation
Overall this is a very well organized article with many different sections that work together as a whole. The content Joshua contributed is well-written and builds upon the information that is already there.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media -- (Joshua did not add images or media yet)


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? -- Yes, the article includes many images that enhance a reader's understanding of the topic. In the first set of images, readers are even given options for which map of either Turkey, the Near East, or the Eastern Mediterranean they'd like to view.
 * Are images well-captioned? --The images in general are well-captioned. Although I believe some captions such as "Göbekli Tepe site (1)" and "Pillar with the sculpture of a fox" could be expanded upon.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? -- Yes, all images adhere to copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? -- Yes, the presentation of the images is well-balanced and visually appealing.

Images and media evaluation
The images and media are strong for this article. However, there could be more variety to the images and not so many of just the site itself.

For New Articles Only (n/a)
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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? -- Yes, the content added by Joshua has improved the overall quality of the article. The information about how gazelles were only seasonally present in the region contributes to a reader's understanding of the importance of the site to a possible hunter-gatherer population.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? -- The content is well-written and carefully / reliably sourced.
 * How can the content added be improved? -- The content could be improved by further explanation. Joshua could find more sources and contribute more content although I am sure we are all still working on this as part of the editing process.

Overall evaluation
Overall, this article is well on its way to becoming a top rated article if it isn’t already. The contributions Joshua has made so far are well-written and fit in seamlessly with the information that was already there. Great work so far! I do think elements of the lead could be improved but I understand if it's intimidating to change the lead because quite a few other users seem to be editing and working on this article. The Interpretation section of the article seems to draw heavily on the findings of Klaus Schmidt, the original discoverer and excavator of the site. That section might benefit from some different perspectives from other excavations if there have been any.