User:Joshsober/Khao Sai On Site/WeiCui-ucsb 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? User:Joshsober
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Joshsober/Khao Sai On 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, the topic sentence is clear.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I recommended to include some sentences mentioning the "Burial Practices" and "Artifacts Discovered" sections.
 * 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
It is majorly concise, however, the last sentence of the Leading has repeated the same infomation provided in the first sentence. ("Metalworking, 1st millennium B.C.E.") Therefore, I recommend to delete one of them, and adding more to briefly describe the other sections of the article.

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? No

Content evaluation
The content is generally enriched, the explaination of metalworking is well covered. However, more introduction of geography can be included, not necessarily the location, but a description of, for example, landscapes of the site. Also, "Khao Sai On" and "Khao On" both appears in your content, which could bring confusion to readers.

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? A little. To me the second sentence of section "Excavation" has a rather strong purposiveness.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is overall neutral, without presence of arguements. Good.

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.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No links under current sandbox draft.

Sources and references evaluation
It is recommended to add links to other wikipedia articles of some concepts, people, or locations, in this way, people who read the article can click to the links if they do not understand certain terms. The citation of the source is accurate.

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? No.
 * 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 (no image or media included in this article)


 * 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? Only one source.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Accurate.
 * 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.

New Article Evaluation
The article is good at its provided information. The author of the article could enhance the visibility of the article by linking it to other articles.

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? Hollistic, good description of artifacts discovered.
 * How can the content added be improved? Some of the explaination can be more in depth, such as the history of the excavation. Also, I recommend to include a paragraph interpreting the overall life of habitants and the function of the site, so that the readers can have a holistic view of the significance of the site after seeing the different discoveries.

Overall evaluation
The article is overally well informed, with only a little minor problems. Well done.