User:Lbaloga/Spirit Cave mummy/Tranquillitatis317 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? Lbaloga
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lbaloga/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I don't believe anything has been added yet.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Vaguely. I think to make a stance that it is the oldest mummy found in North America without including the estimated date needs fixed.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does not
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the part about the mummy being 40 years old isn't mentioned again or referenced clearly.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I would say it is lacking just a bit more information. It could be a short paragraph instead of one sentence.

Lead evaluation
The lead is short, and lacks a bit of information. It would be nice to see maybe another sentence or two going over the sections that will be shown below. I would also consider adding a reference for the 40-year old when they died part.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The info in the sandbox to add is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? There are a few things on the talk page for this article that go back and forth with relevance of certain items, but there are newer (year 2020) references that have been added.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I wonder about the addition of Wizard Beach man and his relevance. I think a lot more content could be added for clarity. It seems the article exists as mostly a collection of dates and points.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, Native Americans and NAGPRA are featured in this article.

Content evaluation
I think the content is barebones at the moment. It might be easier to read paragraphs that delve into the topics as opposed to the few sentences that just mark events in time.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? It seems to be, yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I don't think so.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I don't think so.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance is good here, although in the Talk page there was some back and forth about certain true and false statements made but they seem to have been cleared up since (2011).

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not all, no. In the intro sentence I wish the 40 year old part was cited with where that info came from. There's an article cited written by Caroline Redmond that I don't necessarily think is a good reference. The website seems like a pop culture click bait site and she does not seem to be an expert in the topic. Another article from oldest.com has a similar issue, but it does link to other sources that seem to be better.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I feel like there could possibly some more out there since the article was written originally.
 * Are the sources current? Some recent from 2020 were added, but they range from 1997-present.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? They seem to be mostly from the Nevada Historic Review and feature a couple news articles and journals. I can't say for sure if they feature marginalized voices, but it doesn't seem as though it does.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
I think this area is what could use the most work... I would really review and consider eliminating the two articles: oldest.org and allthingsinteresting.com, and instead cite the sources linked to in oldest.org as information that is more trustworthy. I feel like there should be more peer-reviewed sources from journals or scientific studies in the time since this discovery, it maybe will just take a bit more time to find and vet them.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is a bit oversimplified, lacking in explanation. It is difficult to understand what's being talked about.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Grammar and spelling looked good.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The sections seem intuitive, and just need fleshed out more.

Organization evaluation
The organization of the sections is good. I think the information needs to be fleshed out and added to in order to understand and explain what this cave is.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the photo intended to be added is good.
 * Are images well-captioned? I think so, yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, the image is part of the public domain.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Images and media evaluation
I think this image will be a great addition to the 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? n/a
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? n/a
 * 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? n/a
 * 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? The intended addition will help, but this article needs more information all around.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The photo will add to understanding of the mummy greatly.
 * How can the content added be improved? I would say to find more reliable sources, and add more information in a conversational easy to read way.

Overall evaluation
I think overall this article is off to a good start. There are a lot of ways to go here and a lot of information that can be added. I think the sources need revisited, especially the allthingsinteresting.com and the oldest.org ones. The sources they pull from seem viable, but the articles themselves do not. I think there are probably some great sources out there since the article was last updated, I'd consider searching jstor or google scholar to find more. I think that the sections are good, but maybe writing them as more paragraph and explanation than hefty sentence points would make it easier to follow and understand. (like explain a bit the area found, or the tech used in locating, the couple and their history). The image you're adding is awesome, and fits in all the things that wiki requires of them.