User:Mmcandrew/Tollund Man/Cgpitt 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?  NOakes20
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * sandbox link: no sandbox contributions
 * article link: Tollund Man

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No new context has been added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? While i think that the lead has a good introductory sentence, I feel as though it could be re-worded to more concisely and fluently get the main point of the article across.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is a contents section that shows what will be discussed in the article, but there is no concise overview of the articles contents expressly written.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything mentioned in the lead is discussed in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think there are parts of the lead that don't need to be there. Specifically, I don't think that it is necessary to go into so much detail about how Tollund Man was believed to be a murder victim and how they evaluated his cause of death. This seems to be something that should be mentioned elsewhere in the article.

Lead evaluation
I think that in the case of this lead, there needs to be a little bit of some editing that goes on to maybe rephrase some of the sentences for a more clear and concise sort of introduction. I also think that there needs to be of an emphasis on what the article discusses as a whole that spans beyond just listing the contents of the article. Maybe the addition of just a brief sentence so that the reader knows what to expect in the article to follow. Lastly, I think that there is too much detail in the lead that focuses on the cause of death that doesn't need to be in this section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? No new context has been added to the article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content of this article is pulled from sources that seem to span from the early 90s to the later 2000s. I think that this shows that the content of this article is relatively up to date. I do think though that it would be nice to pull information from sources that are slightly more current say within the last 3-4 years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't think there is much content missing, however, there is a section called "further reading" that I am unsure as to why it is there as it is not referenced and appears to be out of place.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Article does not deal with an equity gap.

Content evaluation
Broadly, I believe that there is definitely more information out there that could be added to this article. With that being said, one of the things that I think you could do right off the bat is remove the "further readings" section. The section seems to be out of place and if it is of importance than i think that there is a better way of summarizing its contents and then cited in the references.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? No content added, but existing content comes off as neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No claims appear to be heavily based in one position.
 * 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? I don't feel as though I am trying to be persuaded in this article, it strikes me more as informative.

Tone and balance evaluation
I think that in terms of tone and balance that the content in this article comes across as neutral and informative. This is an aspect of this article that I would not focus on as much editing wise but rather in the content that you add be sure to make sure that you are writing in a way that is informative and non biased.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No new content has been added.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, however, iI think it would be nice to see the incorporation of some sources that are within the last few years.
 * Are the sources current? The sources span from 1991-2016 so yes, they are relatively current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? In looking through the reference section, from what I can tell the sources that are cited in the reference section seem to not focus on one specific author and span many different disciplines. I think this is a good indicator of diversity.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links work.

Sources and references evaluation
Overall, I think that this section is fairly well put together. I think that when adding new information of finding sources to cite information already in the article it would be great to maybe pull from more recent sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No new content has been added by the user.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? In the content that is already written while I didn't see many specific grammatical errors, I do feel like there are many sentences that are wordy. I think that for better understanding it would be beneficial to break these larger sentences up into multiple sentences. There are small spelling issues such as the word "characterized" in the lead.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I do think that the article has a good layout in that the content gets more specific as you get further into the article.

Organization evaluation
I think that in terms of the layout of this article there are no big issues with its organization. I do think that there could be some editing to make the content more clear, concise, and thus easier to read. For example, "The Tollund Man is a naturally mummified corpse of a man who lived during the 4th century BC, during the period characterized in Scandinavia as the Pre-Roman Iron Age." could be written like this...Tollund Man is a corpse that was naturally mummified (maybe explain what natural mummification is briefly). This corpse dates back to the Scandinavian Pre-Roman Iron Age which took place around 4th century BC (maybe provide range of years of this time period).

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (no new images were added)


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, I feel as though the images provide a deeper understanding of the article.
 * Are images well-captioned? The captions are good, however, one image is completely missing a caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? They appear to abide by regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Images and media evaluation
With the exception of the missing caption for one of the images, I think that this aspect of the article is fairly decent. I do think that it could be interesting to include images of where the body was found so that the reader can get more information on the conditions of where the body was found. (what does a bog look like?)

For New Articles Only (N/A)
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? No new content added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? No content added.
 * How can the content added be improved? Looking at the content that has been added by others i think that one of the first ways to improve this article is editing it for clarity and conciseness. I also think another easy thing to begin to improve this article is look for potential sources to use to cite text that is not already cited in the article because there is a lot of text that is un-cited.

Overall evaluation
Key things that could be improved right off the bat:


 * in-text citations
 * editing for clarity and conciseness
 * removing "further readings" section
 * add better insight as to what the article is discussing in the lead
 * delete all the talk of cause of death from the lead, it belongs elsewhere