User:MtD17/Paracus culture/Familyfare Peer Review

General info
Minnesotaeducated
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Pukara culture:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Pukara culture

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

- The lead is good! It has an introductory sentence, and a brief description of the article's major sections (seen through the two phases of development). It provides some overarching evidence that is not present in the article, which is also good. Yet, it's not overly detailed. It's been updated to make certain sentences more concise, and easier to read.

Content

- There isn't any added information; rather, it's sentence edits/clarification. New information will be added later.

- The current content is up to date, and all the content seems to belong. I think that the last paragraph (the weaking of Pukara) could be worded a bit better, as the last line seemed to speak more about the rise of the Tiwanku than anything. Additionally, I don't see any equity gaps.

Tone & Balance

- Currently, the changed content revolves around sentence edits/clarification rather than adding new information. Based on the proposed outline Lexi gave me, there certainly seems to be new information on the way!

- The claims appear neutral, and the viewpoints are evenly distributed. The content does not attempt to persuade the reader. I got the sense that I was being told a story, especially given the last line of the lead paragpah. "The culture had two phases of development within the Formative Period..."

Sources and References

- Not all the content seems to be backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. I'm not sure where the first reference ("Initial Period Origins of Titicaca Basin Civilization". unm.edu) is coming from, and the last refence ("Pukara Archaeological Complex". Touristic Inventory of Peru.) doesn't work/link.

- The content accurately reflects what the first cited source says (through I can't verify the creditability of it) and I can't access the other sources to tell whether or not the content reflects the cited sources, as source 2 & 3 are within [//www.academia.edu //www.academia.edu], a site where I don't have an account to view the referenced content.

- The sources don't seem to be thorough. Even the first reference that I could view didn't seem to be too helpful. I'll have to assume that it reflects the available literature on the topic. No, the sources are not current, but seem to be written by a diverse spectrum of authors. I can't tell if the source includes historically marginalized individuals where possible.

- I'm sure that there are better sources available, something that can be found with more research. On Lexi's outline, there is pan to add new content, so I'm sure new sources are coming soon!

- 3/4 of the current links work! 2 are behind [//www.academia.edu //www.academia.edu], and the last one does not work.

Organization

- The content added is certainly well-written: concise, clear, and easy to read. I don't see any grammatical or spelling errors. Additionally, the current content is well-organized. I especially like how it's broken down into sections (by the two phases of development) that reflect the major points of the topic?

(Added) Images and Media

N/A

Overall Notes

It's a great article! The current information is well written and well organized. I think the article could benefit from simply more information. This can be found through more resarch, utilizing more credible sources to back up new content revolving around Paracus culture.