User:Kww14/Archaeological excavation/Pittarchy 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)
 * Kww14
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Talk:Archaeological excavation

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? no
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no this could be added - the Lead is confusing, not concise, and does not give a brief description of the article's sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? the 2nd paragraph in the lead show possibly be deleted- I don't think it adds anything to the article, and isn't about excavation.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is overly detailed and could use some editing and removing of information.

Lead evaluation
'''I think the lead could be improved by removing sentences that don't relate to archaeological excavation. The lead also needs a brief summary of what the article actually consists of. So it should be shortened, but also add the summary.'''

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, but it could be more detailed. Especially the section on the history of excavation, as well as the methods of excavation.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Most of it
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There should be more about excavation methodology, like test pitting, trenching, horizontal, and vertical excavations. The section on "finds processing" is also a bit weird. This could be renamed to artifact analysis. Or post-excavation analysis. But since the article is about excavation, not analysis, it should just link to another wikipedia page.

Content evaluation
It is ok right now, but there is room to add more content about excavation, as well as to delete content not related to excavation

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? It is mostly neutral yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I think the article was written by archaeologists in Europe, instead of the United States, as the methods and words seem quite different.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Tone and balance evaluation
This is ok

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No - the lead, history, and methodology sections could use citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No - you should add citations from the sources we read in class, many of their citations come from tv shows.
 * Are the sources current? Some are, some aren't.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? the citations seem to work

Sources and references evaluation
'''There are typos and missing information in the references. you could work at editing this in addition to adding references from our class.'''

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No - it could use a lot of rewrites
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? that seems ok to me
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think you could break this down into more sections, and make the sentences easier to understand by rewriting them.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes, but I think better images could be added. Even drawings that show stratigraphy
 * Are images well-captioned? no there are errors and typos and the captions aren't always clear
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no

Images and media evaluation
you could add better images or drawings, as well as improve the captions

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? You have done a good job adding citations and editing. The sentences you have added in your sandbox are good as well. I would now add information from this class - go back the readings and add information about types of excavation methodology, the history of archaeology, etc. You can use the sources we used in class! Especially from the first 2 weeks!
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Good start!