User:Metomlinson/Feminist Archaeology/Catghoyt 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? ) Metomlinson
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Metomlinson/Feminist Archaeology

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, I think it is well written and streamlined to include what is covered in the article so far.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? (see my comments below) So far it does, but it is difficult to say until all of the topic headlines are established.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Just too hard to tell because we are all still working on it. So far so good!

Lead evaluation
I think it is good so far! The only thing that I am unclear about is if this article is about feminist archaeology or specifically, black feminist archaeology. I think it is the headings that are confusing to me.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, especially the topic of black feminist archaeology.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not so far, but because we are still working on this, it is impossible to tell!
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, very definitely.  It is a great topic that needs to be discussed more.

Content evaluation
The content looks good and flows nicely so far. I might add another paragraph that solidifies the link between paleolithic people of Europe and black feminist theory.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?  No, it is written in a very neutral tone and I do not detect any biases at all.
 * 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
I think the content is neutral with no bias.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I think you could add a few more sources, but the ones you have seem good so far!
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the article is about black feminist archaeology which appears to be a subject that needs to researched more.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Sources look great so far... I would add a few more as you move forward.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is well written, concise and was easy for me to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
It looks organized and information under the subtopics look very relative.

Images and Media
No Images: N/A

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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 article, so far focuses mostly on black feminist archaeology and it has improved the quality of the article because the original doesn't mention this at all.  I think this topic could stand on its own.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? They are relative to an underrepresented population in archaeology and support the sub-topics nicely.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think, if anything, you could add maybe one more example to the prehistory section to strengthen your supporting information, but I think so far it looks really good!

==== Overall evaluation: I think this looks really good t so far. It is so hard to answer some of the questions because we are all still in the middle of it. Good job on a topic that there needs to be more conversation about! ====