User:Ktrkeller/Yellow Bluffs Site/IsBrzy 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 "Ktrkeller's" work.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ktrkeller/Yellow Bluffs Site

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? // N/A
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? // The Lead's introductory sentence is really strong and does help introduce the article's topic. I like how you described who occupied the site and some of the features of the site immediately!
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? // The Lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections, though I would suggest including one additional sentence that introduces the excavations at the Yellow Bluffs site and what was found. This would help prepare your readers for the immediate next section, which is about the excavations.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? // There is no information in the article that is not already introduced in the Lead. The Lead is very helpful in briefly describing the article's contents.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? // The Lead is very concise and does a great job of being straight-to-the-point and not going into too much detail.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? // The content added is very relevant to the topic. I like how much depth and detail you give for the different excavations that happened at the Yellow Bluffs site as well as the information given about the artifacts found there.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? // The content added in the article is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? // There is wide variety of information about the site within the article, but I would recommend maybe shortening the amount of information given about the different research programs that studied the site. Maybe some programs are more important or worth mentioning than others? This would help give you more space to go into more depth about other areas that may have not been covered. Overall though, the amount of context you give in describing the site's location, past occupations, and excavation analysis is awesome! There does not seem to be any important information missing.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? // The content added is neutral, it does not appear to have any bias. It is informative and objective.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? // There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? // There are no viewpoints that are either overrepresented or underrepresented in the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? // The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in any direction or in favor of any position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? // There are marks in the article that indicate the writer's intention of adding citations and a reference later on, but at the time of this peer review there is no actual input of a reference to back up the article content.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? // N/A
 * Are the sources current? // N/A
 * Check a few links. Do they work? // At the time of this peer review, there are no clickable links to either the reference or any other source of information within the article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? // The content added within the article is extremely well-written and easy to follow. There are some areas, such as in the "Excavation History and Mapping" section, where the word choices are a little complex and could be relayed more easily. But for the most part, the content is very clear and comprehendible.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? // There are little to no grammatical or spelling errors within the article content.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? // In terms of organization, I would suggest you place the "Site Occupation" section before the "Excavation History and Mapping" section because I believe it would help the content flow more. Site occupation is something that could help introduce the characteristics of the site more and help provide more introductory context before going into the more-recent excavations and archaeological fieldwork. Also, I would recommend putting your analysis of the site findings and artifacts as a subheading under the "Excavation History and Mapping" section. I feel that this type of information is most relevant to the excavations (since digging up artifacts is apart of that process), and should thus be included under there somewhere. Lastly, I would suggest separating the significance of the site (at the end of the article) and putting it into its own heading. The heading could be called something like "Site Significance." Aside from that, you did a really great job of organizing the content!

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? // N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? // N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? // N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? // N/A

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? // Yes, the article is supported by an outside reference and source. The citations and actual reference list have yet to be inputted however.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? // Again, the writer has not yet input a list of references within the article just yet.
 * 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, the article does follow the patterns of other similar articles by having things like section headings, a lead section, and eventual citations.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? // N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? // There may be a few minor adjustments that could help make the article more complete and ready for final processing, but so far the amount of content and information is very solid and helps make the article informative!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? // Some of the things that I liked about your article include the amount of depth and information you provide when discussing each subtopic about the site, the amount of context you provide in terms of the site's location and surroundings, and your strong Lead section. I also like how you provided information on the temporal context of the site's artifacts and findings, and how those relate to the site's past occupations.
 * How can the content added be improved? // Some ways that I suggest editing your content include dividing and moving around some of the information that could fit into separate headings, including citations and a reference list at the end of the article, and maybe indicating that the interpretations of the described artifacts come from archaeologists (so that people don't see it as you being biased or anything).