User:ICK3PITT/Urban archaeology/Devonvietri 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? (provide username) ICK3PITT
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urban_archaeology&oldid=967371366

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The Lead has not been edited because ICK3PITT didn't find any problems with it initially.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead includes a contents section, but doesn't really touch on the actual subsections of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I noticed a lot of short sentences in the first paragraph, so I think that if these were combined a bit it would flow better.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There's a link in the Lead that says "clarification needed," so this might need more information if it's missing some or need more specific details.

==== Content evaluation: Content is easily digestible, relevant, and up-to-date, but could use more sources to fill in some blanks. Elaboration on some of the archaeologists you added to the "famous urban archaeologists" section would be helpful. ====

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * 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? No, a lot of content is missing citation
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They don't represent an array of information available on the topic, I'm only seeing sources being cited for the archaeologists section
 * Are the sources current? Once source is from 1969, but this may be information that doesn't age.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the ones I checked worked

==== Sources and references evaluation: Sources are not the best, I'm not even seeing any sources being cited anywhere in the article except for the notable archaeologists section. Where is the information everywhere else coming from? Definitely need more in-text citations. ====

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Like I mentioned earlier, the content could be a bit more well-written if some smaller sentences were combined to make information more concise. Otherwise, it looks fine
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I saw
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * 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? The edits made by my peer have added positively to the article and it's now more complete as a result.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Adding more notable archaeologists to the list helps broaden the horizon of urban archaeology and points viewers towards more people and resources on the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved? Some minor sentence changes to improve flow, adding in-text citations on information not cited, images if any seem appropriate?

==== Overall evaluation: My peer has positively contributed to the article, but it definitely still needs more work (not at the fault of my peer, it's just an underdeveloped article). Some minor changes could be made that would enhance this article drastically. ====