User:Johannaalarcon/Firehouse Site/Nikkitorno 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)
 * I am reviewing the "Firehouse Site" article draft by user Johnnaalarcon.
 * 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 seems to reflect the content added in the article so far, which seems to have been entirely written by the student. The Lead has a very informative introductory sentence, though the sentence structure is a bit meandering. It is awesome that there is so much content given in the Lead, but making the introductory sentence more concise would be beneficial because it is currently a run-on sentence. The lead does a great job of providing a description of the topics that will be discussed in the sections of the article, but I would suggest that directly saying these topics, "will be discussed further more in the sections below," is not necessary because the target audience should already be expecting to read the sections below if they want more information. Overall, the content of the Lead is concise and gives a very good overview of the site, but the phrasing is a bit convoluted.

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 has been added is only present in the Lead and "Materials and Methods" sections, so the "bone tools" and "excavation history" sections have content missing as they have not been written yet. This is completely fine because we all are only in the rough draft stage of the article; I am just noting this to give a full review of the content so far. The content that has been added seems to be up to date, and, in fact, both sources cited are from the last few years. The content added seems to be relevant to the topic in most places, though I would recommend considering removing the sentence about potential poor preservation of artifacts because the preceding sentence implies that the preservation was not poor at the Firehouse Site. Simplifying the sentence structure may be beneficial to communicating the content as well, for it may be easy for someone viewing the article casually to get confused. But the actual information added so far is very useful and seems to be off to a great start!

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 content added is neutral, and there are no claims that appear to be biased towards any opinions in the article. There also do not appear to be any viewpoints that are over or underrepresented because the article remains neutral and objective. The content added does not seem to be intended to persuade the reader to believe anything; the student is simply stating facts. One place in the draft where the tone is a bit awkward is in the use of the phrase "archaeologist[s] take advantage" of artifacts- I don't believe this was the student's intention, but taking advantage of a site can imply that the archaeologists were not respectful of the artifacts or the culture that they belonged to. Again, this can also have the more neutral implication that they made full use of the artifacts, and I am sure that was the intended meaning, but I might suggest rephrasing the opening of that sentence to avoid any potential confusion. I know that this is a picky example, but it is really the only instance where the tone of the draft gets a bit fuzzy. So, overall, the content of the article has a balanced perspective.

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
None of the information in the Lead is cited; it seems that the information would have come from the same sources cited later in the article, but this content should have a citation every time information from a source is used. There are only two sources linked, one of which is a related Wikipedia article, but both links work and are current. It is hard to say if the sources reflect the available literature on the site because I am not familiar with what breadth of sources may be available, and it is possible that there are not very many credible sources for this specific site. However, given that the draft is quite short and based on a very specific site, it would seem that having one very reliable source does not truly mean the sources are not thorough.

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 sections that have been created reflect the major points of the topic, and the organization of the page seems to be well thought out. There are quite a few grammatical errors throughout both the Lead and the "Materials and Methods" section, and the content is often not very concise or easy to read. I definitely tend to have long sentences too, and I don't mean to come off as being overly critical in this assessment, but it seems important to point this out. The information presented is off to a really strong beginning, so editing the grammar and phrasing would just be the next step to make a great final article.

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
No images or other media have been added to the rough draft of this article, so this section of the review is not applicable.

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
The article does link to another article, and the format so far seems to be comparable to other similar articles. The article does not have an exhaustive list of sources, so it may not meet the notability requirements to be published on Wikipedia. However, for a short rough draft, this is completely understandable, and just finding another good source or two would fix this very easily. Also, one very small aspect of the Wikipedia guidelines that many people (including myself) might miss is that the topic name is supposed to be bolded the first time it is written in the lead. This is a pretty small thing to point out, but it is listed specifically in the requirements, so make sure to bold "Firehouse Site" in the introductory sentence of the lead.

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
Overall, this is a very informative start for the article. The content added by this student has vastly improved the quality of the article, and since they seem to have created this article, of course the article is more complete with the addition of this content. The content added is objective, neutral, and gives information about a site people may not know about otherwise. These are all great strengths, and just adding content to the empty sections and editing the grammar would take the quality up another level. You've got this!