User:Ktrkeller/Yellow Bluffs Site/Lauren01997 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? Ktrkeller
 * 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?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise, detailing important information about the site such as location, major archaeological features, and environmental influence.

Lead evaluation
The introductory sentence details who occupied it and the major archaeological features. The rest of the lead provides an overview of the information presented in the body of the article. It covers site location, environment, and important features.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The article content is up to date and relevant to the topic. For the Site Occupation section, I would keep the information about who used the site in that category but move the information about artifacts found and artifact analysis into two different categories.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the article comes across as neutral. The information is presented logically and in an unbiased tone.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are citations added, but they are not added correctly. There needs to be a references section added at the end of the article and citation links need to be added. I am unable to verify the sources used in this article since there are no links or references to review the articles cited.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content and flow of the information presented in the article is good, but the headings should be more representative of the content. The Excavation History and Mapping section represents the content well. The site occupation section should only contain information about who lived there and how they used the site. Information about the artifacts found/areas investigated can be put under one heading and analysis of these finds can be put under another.

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


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images or media added to this article.

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?

New Article Evaluation
This article is supported by 2 sources that I am unable to verify. The general format of the article is similar to other Wikipedia content.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The content presented in this article provides clear information about the Yellow Bluffs site. Descriptions of past project history and site mapping are understandable and presented in a good way to the reader. To make this article better I suggest adding more section headings, citations/references page, a contents list, and images to help visualize the site.