User:Kbee2/An Son, Vietnam/Ksaldan3 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kbee2


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kbee2/An_Son%2C_Vietnam?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * An Son, Vietnam

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The article provides an introduction to explain the general ideas and topics that will be discussed throughout the rest of the article. This introduction does a good job of locating the site spatially and chronologically for the reader. However, I noticed that the use of language seems to be a little bit biased, or tends to attempt to sway the reader. There is discussion of conclusions of archaeological findings, and the article uses the word "gather" which comes off as argumentative. I think that substituting "suggest" or "suggests" would help to make this introduction section appear more neutral it its execution. I like that the introduction is concise, short, and to the point including a wrap-up sentence to conclude the paragraph. The image provided is also helpful for the reader to place the site on a map to better understand it in geographical terms.

Content:

The content includes four main topics, which seem interesting by their titles alone. In the "Excavation History" section I particularly liked that the years of excavation were divided into their own sub-categories and bolded in an organized fashion. The use of language in this section is more neutral in citing the names and credibility of the archaeologists and their findings that appear as statements instead of opinions. The sections are relevant in discussing tools used by the population, different remains, and origin histories.

Tone and Balance:

Other than the small adjustment to the introduction paragraph's language, the rest of the tone seems to be neutral in presenting evidence of archaeological research. As for balance, I think the section at the bottom that mentions the significance of the article is neat, I like that this provides a way for the reader to understand all the concepts of the article in a simplified version. As this section gets added to, I'm sure it will be significant to the article as the deadline approaches.

Sources and References:

The evidence provided in the content sections of the article are properly cited with sources. As for the actual references for the sources cited, the authors are different which provides multiple viewpoints to draw from in their article which is a good sign. I only notice the repetition of a few authors, but with the addition of multiple other authors in each source I think it provides enough varying conclusions and hypotheses.

Organization:

I like the organization of the article so far, I think the bolded sub-categories are nice and the layout makes sense. I notice a few places that some headers should be capitalized to create a more put-together appearance, but as the article is in the drafting stage still I think those little details can be adjusted later.

Images and Media:

The article does include one image that provides a link to the Wikipedia image that it was sourced from. The caption of the image goes along with the introduction paragraph adjacent.

For New Articles Only:

Since this is a new article, given a page doesn't exist, I think this is a good start and the drafting stage seems to be going well in terms of the content sections that are yet to be fully elaborated on. The reference list is not exhaustive, but I assume the list will grow as more information is added to the article. I noticed that a few of the articles came from Asian Perspectives which was also where many of the articles I found and used in my bibliography came from as well which were found on JSTOR.

Overall Impressions:

I think what has been added so far is useful information to include in the article. I think this article does a good job of establishing a well thought out timeline and I think the content topics are interesting and unique. Something that could be improved would be the neutral language, and possibly a content section that discusses burials or funerary traditions.