User:Gschoner/Ban Non Wat/Rbrasted Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Gschoner, Pengwyn00, Meyboo


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gschoner/Ban_Non_Wat?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Lead

 * The lead has been updated and an introductory sentence has been added. Both look good. The lead focuses on the chronology of the site - site, as does the article, so its content is accurate. For me, the talk about soil analysis and radiocarbon dating feels slightly too detailed for the lead, but definitely something that should definitely be added to the body of the article and elaborated on!

Content

 * The content presented appears relevant and up to date. There is an adequate level of content provided - but continuing to expand on things like the subsistence methods and artifacts found as sources allow would definitely enhance the article.

Tone and Balance

 * Your content is definitely well balanced, and I did not catch any biased claims. I did catch a few very minor word choices where neutrality could perhaps be improved - specifically where things are described as exotic or remarkable. However, those are once again very minor.

Sources and References

 * The links work and everything so far seem to be accurately sited and using current/reputable sources. You've done a particularly good job with making sure that every single claim is being cited. Your Iron Age section also needs sources. But I assume that is only because it is a work in progress, and sources will be added later! The only other uncited claim I saw was this: "The excavations have been run by Charles Higham, and now by Dr. Nigel Chang and are partially funded by the Earthwatch institute. They are considered by some to be amongst the richest archaeological digs under current excavation."

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * I didn't catch any serious grammar/spelling errors. The chronological organization of the article also seems good for gaining a basic understanding of the sites. It is reasonably clear, but I think one way to improve it might adding sub headers for the sections (ie. Early Neolithic Phase vs Late Neolithic phase, or having separate subsections focused on artifacts/methods of subsistence/anything else for each section.) Since the average Wikipedia user is pretty casual, it might also be worthwhile to emphasize dates a bit more.

Images and Media
I thought the images were really well done, including the captions. I liked the inclusion of both a map and a photo.

For New Articles Only

 * A wide variety of reputable sources are being used, which is great! I also see a bunch of Wikipedia links. Links to the Neolithic/Bronze Age/etc. pages might be nice too, but not doing so also seems reasonable and a matter of preference. Similar articles tend to take a subject-focused view rather than a chronological one - but I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing.

Overall impressions

 * Just keep working at it! I can tell that what you have is a good start, and I am sure that this article will absolutely continue to bloom even more fully as you add to it!