User:McLeanB23/Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia/EAB2000 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? (McLeanB23)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia

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?

Lead evaluation:
Lots of the content you added was already referenced in the lead however you may want to adjust the lead to have more of a focus on the sections you have improved.Yes the lead gives a very concise breakdown about the articles topic may want to split it into multiple sentences having the first be very high-level and the second giving more in depth reviews.No the lead definitely needs to touch on the individual sections more to provide the reader a better overview of the entire article.Some of the info is repeated in a different way later on but i would say that all of it is covered.I would say if anything its a little short it provides good information about the article but needs to touch more on the individual sections within the article.

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
Yes everything added seemed on topic with the article adding beneficial information.Yes the content is up to date with sources covering a wide time span.Winged Artemis feels like it is missing a little more detail or could possibly be shifted to the bottom to ease the importance of it.

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
Yes the writing is very neutral with no clear opinion being held by the writer.Don't notice any bias in the article seems pretty neutral.I would say the viewpoints are all evenly covered with most being a very third party style just listing facts.Nope this article to me feels like it is just trying to provide knowledge about the article.

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
Yes lots of strong references giving honesty to the data.Yes they seem to be very strong sources giving a rounded collection of info for the article.Yes with some dating as early as 2014.Yes the links do work on the 2 I tried.

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
Yes very easy to read some of the spacing seemed a little off especially in the Excavation section but I think that is due to the Bolded letters.I couldn't find any before you publish I recommend using Grammarly to be safe. Yes the topics are well organized you may want to shuffle them around putting the most important at the top and some of the larger ones in the middle for ease to the reader. Some of the larger sections you may want to break down into sub sections.

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?

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?

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
Yes i believe you are absolutely on the right track just clean up the lead to provide a more clear overview and touch on the individual sections.Provides a lot more info and the references help provide readers with external resources. Just make sure to keep the article flowing well as well as keeping the spacing and look clean so readers don't have to jump around. Good Work over all!