User:Krw77/Archaeology of shipwrecks/Laurela2020 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? krw77
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Archaeology of shipwrecks

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * i don't believe my peer has made any edits, but the lead of the article sounds good, just needs more sources and possibly it would be good to paraphrase the quotation in the lead instead of quoting another source.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes, the lead introductory sentence explains what shipwreck archaeology is in plain terms.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * no, it does not appear to talk about the rest of the major sections on this wikipedia page.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * i think the lead goes into too much detail to be in the lead. I think some of the information should be in the rest of the sections of the wikipedia page.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * it is overly detailed. i think the quotes used should be summarized.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * does not seem like from the user sandbox that material was added.
 * but sections of the article do appear all to be relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * does not seem like from the user sandbox that material was added.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, I think that all the sections included belong in accordance with the wikipedia page.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * does not seem like from the user sandbox that material was added.
 * but for the most part the article seems neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no, I do not think so.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * no, I do not think so.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no, I do not think so.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * does not seem like from the user sandbox that material was added.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes, i believe so.
 * most of the sources appear to be from educational sources.
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes, the majority of the articles seem to be from 2015+.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes, the links that I clicked on worked for me.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * does not seem like from the user sandbox that material was added.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * does not seem like from the user sandbox that material was added.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * does not seem like from the user sandbox that material was added.
 * but, the sections of the article seem well organized by topics that are relevant to the main overall topic.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * there are no images on this page.
 * but i think an image of an old shipwreck that archaeologists have studied would be cool!
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * there are no images on this page.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * there are no images on this page.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * there are no images on this page.

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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * does not seem like from the user sandbox that material was added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * does not seem like from the user sandbox that material was added.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * does not seem like from the user sandbox that material was added.

==== Overall evaluation: I think the article needs more sources attached to claims, some of the quotes used need to be summarized and paraphrased, and it would be cool to talk about a shipwreck archaeologists have studied and include a picture of it on the wikipedia page. ====