User:ICK3PITT/Urban archaeology/Eplogger 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: Urban archaeology

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No. In the lead, it is mentioned that "there is one big method that is used in Urban archaeology", but it does not state that the method is single context recording, which was content that my peer added. They should mention single context recording in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introductory sentence succinctly describes the topic of the article and how "Urban archaeology is a sub discipline of archaeology specializing in the material past of towns and cities,".
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, it does not provide an overview of the article's major sections. A brief overview should be added.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
Overall the lead is good, but the topic of single context recording should be added and a brief description of the major sections of the article should be mentioned to give readers an overview of what the article will be about.

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 is a sentence in the lead discussing walled towns from medieval Europe that could probably be taken out because there isn't any additional information about it's connection to urban archaeology.

Content evaluation
The content is good, and the section about the famous Urban archaeologists is especially nice. Many aspects of urban archaeology are covered in the content, including the historic development and methods of it, in a thorough concise manner.

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.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance are excellent and not biased in any way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, most of the sources are from 2020.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Not all of the links work. The open area excavation, sondage, Timothy F. Stroud, and C. Allen Braxton links do not work.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources provided are great, however a couple of the links do not work. The links should be fixed so that people can read the content from the sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is easy to comprehend and concise but the connection between the topics in the paragraphs should be more detailed and apparent.
 * 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?
 * A little bit, but there could be more of an improvement. As mentioned before, a brief overview of the major topics of the article would help with organization and previewing what the article will be about.

Organization evaluation
There are some additional elements of organization that should be added, like an overview. All paragraphs of the article should be cohesive as well, so it might be helpful to go through and make sure the connection between them is clear.

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


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

Images and media evaluation
Images could be added of different towns and cities that are being examined by urban archaeologists to give readers a visual.

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 addition of information on single context recording did improve the overall quality of the article and make it more complete, but it should be mentioned in the lead.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It gives insight into the methodology most commonly used in urban archaeology, which gives more information to the article as a whole.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Additional content could be added to give even more information on the topic of urban archaeology.

Overall evaluation
Overall, this article has a solid foundation, but it could be improved with images/visuals, more organization, and having all links to sources be in working condition.