User:Michelleucsb/County Home Site/RememeberThePlacidium 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? Michelleucsb
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Michelleucsb/County Home Site

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
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, but the intro could be more broad, and details should be in their respective sections eg. findings include faunal and botanical remains, indicating that the X group of people who inhabited here domesticated a wide array of agriculture... You can go into what specific remains were found in your section. (otherwise it is fine as it is)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise but could be more broad to provide an overview

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? EVerything belongs, article is a bit short so maybe add more findings or interpretations of existing findings, the process of excavation including mapping/surveying, etc.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * 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

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? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No links yet

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None noted (but im bad at grammar myself oof)
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media No Media added yet


 * 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? At this stage, not yet. Keep in mind that your provided article cites pre-existing ones, so you can reference those if you use the information from them.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Only one source so far
 * 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? Structure is fine
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? no links yet

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Article feels incomplete for now, but after adding necessary citations and links, it will be a solid article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Well organized and easy to read/understand
 * How can the content added be improved? Can be improved through adding more information