User:Isaacsj3/Paisley Caves/Beck Woollen Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer Review for ARCN 111:

Dear Issacsj3,

I enjoyed reading the Paisley Caves article that you are working on. Right away, I should note that the lead of the article is strong. I felt as though it gave a good synopsis of what the article was about. Framing also seemed good; there was little bias to be found, which was awesome. Generally I appreciated the balance between the Pre-Clovis and Clovis-First viewpoints. One thing that I wanted to clarify was the dates and how these fit into this discussion. More specifically, I noticed an human-made artifact was dated to 12,270 yr BP, and lent itself to Pre-Clovis evidence. Conversely, the date earlier in the article as mentioned for Clovis-First as 14,500 cal yr BP. I could definitely be misunderstanding the dating mechanism or what exactly the latter date conveys, but in any case, I think clarifying this would be an awesome step! Generally, I felt that the citations looked good. One possible area where a few could be added is the second paragraph in the Significant Findings section of the article; if you're going for the 'adding citations' route on the rubric, the first few sentences of that paragraph could be a great spot to add 1-2 sources! The only other thing I found was perhaps changing the phrase "such evidence" in the last bit of the Significant Findings section. I think a more explicit phrase like "evidence of Pre-Clovis activity" could drive the point home and enhance the sentence's clarity a bit. With that all said, I think the article is in really good shape. Thanks!