User:Johannaalarcon/Firehouse Site/Joshsober 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) Johannaalarcon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Johannaalarcon/Firehouse Site

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead does a good job of a concise introduction the location of the site as well as what archaeologists discovered there. However some parts of the intro are too broad such as "ed an opportunity to study organic tools typically rare to find outside of wet sites", explaining why to readers is important, because they might not understand which areas are better for preservation and why. Other than that, all of the topics discussed in the intro can be found in the further sections.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content that is included is very good for setting the stage of the site, however the article is missing some important information such as what archeoligsts excavated the site and how. Also explaining what the archaeologists have been able to gather about the society based on the artifacts that they discovered could really help your article, if you have access to the information.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is neutral and informative.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources and references are good, and are up to date.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content is well written and easy to read, with no grammatical errors that I could see. However, one thing I think would help the article would be to break the "Materials and Methods", category into two different sections, which would help give the article more depth in those areas.

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?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images, but images of the artifacts could really help readers get a visual representation of your descriptions.

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?

New Article Evaluation
So far the article only has 2 sources and needs another one to fit the notability requirements, but other than that the article is looking good so far.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
So far, the article does a good job exploring the site but it needs more information about who excavated it, and why. Overall, just adding more to your article with differing sections could really help to improve the article you have started.