User:Mij52/Chronological dating/NotPaulDirac 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? (provide username) Mij52
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Chronological dating

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Unsure
 * 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
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
Lead could be a little larger or incorporate more as well as have citations attributed to it.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Added content appears to be up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I can tell.

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

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone appears to neutral and informative.

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? For the most part, one dates back to a journal issue from the 1950's. Although I am not sure if that can or should be helped.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All except source 9 work properly. Source 9 leads to a 404 error.

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? No
 * 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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * 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?
 * 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? It looks like the description was edited, not sure which parts but it is easy to read and understand.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Content is very understandable, the language used isn't esoteric, and very comprehensive.
 * How can the content added be improved? I understand it is a broad topic, if at all possible, maybe some more detail could be added to each or descriptions of the specific types of dating. Attributing citations to the material would help.

Overall evaluation
'''Overall it is easy to understand and comprehensive. Could add some pictures if possible as well as aligning material with citations.'''