User:Mads1978/Memot Circular Earthworks/Cdunn23 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mads1978


 * Link to draft you're reviewing

Memot Circular Earthworks


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Does not exist—new article.

Lead
The lead section is very strong. It gives a clear overview of what's the come and after reading it, I feel like I can walk away knowing the very basics of the sites and the archaeological work done. I do think some of the wording decreases readability, but overall it's a very good lead.

Content
The features section needs more work. I feel like there's not much content there and it's lacking the information needed to understand the features of these earthworks. The excavation history section is very strong. It is succinct but gives a clear overview of the history of excavation at the sites. The archaeology section needs more information, but it's a good start. Overall, I like the information that's been added thus far and all of it is well cited, but more information and content is needed for the article to be more complete.

Tone and Balance
The tone is neutral and I didn't think any perspective was favored over others. In the excavation history section, two researchers are listed and neither seems to be heavily favored. The site doesn't feel biased in any way.

Sources and References
There's six sources and they all seem to be pretty recent and up to date. The information presented in the article reflects the sources and none of it is reworded to misrepresent the sources. There are many authors across the six sources and many are from minority groups. The sources used are high quality, academic sources that are peer reviewed and well researched. Overall, the use of sources so far is well done.

Organization
I think the organization of the article could use some work. I think having the features part at the very top doesn't work that well because there's no context for the findings yet. I would probably put the history part first and then include the features part in the archaeology section. I think the archaeology section could be renamed to something like "Archaeological Findings" to better represent the information in that section. I think this is the part of the site that needs the most reworking.

Images and Media
So far no images have been added. Having images of the earthworks would help the reader a lot, as well as having a map of the different sites.

New Article Section
The article meats Wikipedia's Notability requirements. There's six sources from academic journals and I think they cover the topic pretty extensively. More information can be added to the article from those sources as well. There's some headings so far and it seems like it's beginning to follow the layout of other existing Wikipedia articles. The article links to many other Wikipedia articles so it will be more discoverable.

Overall Impressions
Overall, I think this is a good start. The lead is very strong, and while the organization and content needs some work, I think it's on the right track.