User:Jessicaduran1809/Bell Site/Ivyumozurike Peer Review

Peer review
This is where y ou will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (ivyumozurike)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jessicaduran1809/Bell Site

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * 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? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

==== Lead evaluation The Lead written so far is a good start for the draft of the article. However, more information should be included that introduces or briefly describes sections about the excavation and geography of the site. ====

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Not sure
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

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? Not sure
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Not sure
 * Are the sources current? Not sure
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Did not see any links

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are about 4 grammatical/spelling mistakes
 * 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 : N/A


 * 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? No
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The sources were not identified so I am unsure.
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I like how it is well-detailed and even concise. I understand newer articles most likely are harder to find sources for, so the amount of detail still given in the draft was great.
 * How can the content added be improved? Include citations to boost credibility of article, fix grammar mistakes, and include more information in the lead of the article