User:Meghana Vemulapalli/Archaeology in India/ICK3PITT 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? Meghana Vemulapalli
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Archaeology in India

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it reflects content of the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It provides who does the studies but could add a brief sentence defining it more.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes it provides a list of content and sections that it will cover.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all information in lead is present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise and does not extend into unnecessary information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?: Yes, the content in the article is all relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? All of the content is up to date and does not include outdated information that would be misleading.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Another example of archaeology in India that is from the past few years would be a good addition to the article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, there are no opinions being pushed and content is balanced.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, they all appear to be just giving readers facts and nothing to sway people's thoughts.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, they all seem fair in terms of representation.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, there is not any writing that is used as persuasion.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, they are all backed and included with citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they reflect available literature for this topic.
 * Are the sources current? They all seem to be current and up to date.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links worked when I clicked on them.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is all easy to read and is well-written without any clarity issues.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There were no spelling or grammatical errors in the article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is well organized into multiple sections to help readers keep track of information.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, there is one image, which is an appropriate example to use.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, the image is well-captioned since it describes what the building is briefly without unnecessary information.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? It is visually appealing since it is easy for people to see the building.

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? Yes, it is mostly complete and enhanced the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Clear writing so readers should not be confused along with no biasses or persuasions by the writer.
 * How can the content added be improved? In the lead add a sentence defining the topic more and later give an example of recent archaeological discovery in India.