User:KiraXMaddox/Cardamom Mountain Jar Burial Sites/Ksaldan3 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

KiraXMaddox


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


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cardamom Mountain Jar Burial Sites

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The lead of this article is really strong, I like how factual, information, and educational it is. It is very neutral, and it does a good job of summarizing what the site is and the main points of the article. As a reader, I feel like after reading this introduction I already have a good understanding of what this site has to offer. This paragraph definitely needs a title or header above it so that it doesn't get skipped in the layout of the article, since as of now it's just inserted at the top of the page. However, it does a good job of being concise and straight to the point.

Content:

The content topics are relevant to the article, in the first section "Sites," the article discusses ten different sites. I assume that the sub-categories are meant to go more in depth about those ten sites, however, there's only five sites listed in this section which could be confusing for the reader as to the significance of choosing only five out of ten. I'm aware that this could also just be due to the early drafting process and that the article will eventually include all ten sites, but if not, I would suggest that it would make sense to include all ten if the section mentions that many. I think the "Jar Burial contents" section is a good follow up to the "Sites" section because it maintains a flow throughout the article that is easy for a reader to interpret this article along a storyline.

Tone and Balance:

I think this article is very neutral in its wording, I like how factual it has been written so far and I enjoy how the wording is easy to understand. The use of language seems to be well written in the writer's own words specifically which is a good sign as well. I think the presentation of standpoints is useful in the article specifically using "From a manufactured standpoint," it tells the reader about different viewpoints without attempting to persuade the reader.

Sources and References:

The article does cite sources throughout when describing archaeological findings and evidence. Although some paragraphs seems like there should be a citation, especially in the "grave goods" section when a number or statistic is mentioned it might be more accurate if a source was included. For example, "Almost 1,500 glass beads..." should probably be followed by a citation to assert credibility so that the reader can know where exactly that number came from. The references section includes many different authors and across different years of research which tells me as a reader that the sources are credible and from accurate sources. I noticed Alison Carter was in multiple references which also tells me that the references are credible and from peer-reviewed journal articles.

Organization:

As for organization, I think the bolded sub-categories flow nicely, however I would suggest that more content topics are added other than just "Sites" and "Jar Burial contents." I would suggest maybe adding more topics that discuss the agricultural techniques, influences from other regions, or even hierarchical concepts about the population would be interesting in addition to the contents provided. I also think the discussion about trade was particularly interesting and a section could be added that just discusses the influence of trade only instead of it being integrated into the "grave goods" category.

Images and Media:

There are no images or media in this article so far, but I would suggest an image of a map to place this site geographical would be beneficial for the reader to get a better sense of the location. I also think images of the Jar Burial contents would be useful and unique to view in this article as well.

For New Articles Only:

The list of sources is not too exhaustive, but given that this article isn't that far along yet, six references seems like a good amount to start off with. I did notice that the article provides links to three other articles, "leukemia," "rickets," and "anemia." This just helps the reader establish an understanding of the vocabulary that is discussed in the article in case the reader is unfamiliar.

Overall Impressions:

I think that overall, the material added is informational and worthy of the topics chosen to focus on. I personally enjoy learning about burials and grave goods found in the burials so this is an article that I think is very interesting and I think that as this page develops it will be very significant and useful. A strength of the article is the "Jar Burial contents" section because it goes really in depth into the human remains found in the burials and the different types of grave goods that have been excavated. This section cites a lot of the references and is well written so far in presenting adequate information. I also like the last section that wraps up the article in the "Ongoing archaeological efforts" category. I think this is a useful aspect to include because it acts as an optimistic viewpoint for the reader to understand that research is to be built upon, and all the theories presented can be contested as well.