User:Nch5719/Cahokia/Iamasushi Peer Review

General info
Arch.editr12
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

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


 * Drafted content doesn't include updates for the lead section. Lead has adequate starting sentence, but focuses a lot on the park and not Cahokia itself, and doesn't seem to include information regarding important events in Cahokia history, or any mentions of its people (though admittedly a separate article for Cahokia people exists). --> Potential additional improvement

Content


 * Drafted material mainly focuses on adding potential new sections to the article, with a few revisions of existing article content. Sections with drafts have material relevant to article, with general overviews of each topic. However, each section does seem to be relatively short (~1 paragraph each). Extending each section to include more in-depth detail is suggested, if it wasn't already planned. (ex. Section 4: "These differences in leadership style likely lead to conflict, violent or non-violent." --> could be further expanded upon, providing possible theories suggested by archaeologists if available. Notable comment is that the repeated usage of "likely" in Section 4; admittedly known knowledge is all theorized, but perhaps showing doubt in article isn't the best)
 * One suggestion would be to also update existing article content (ex. Decline section doesn't mention people diversity & conflict covered in course content).

Sources


 * Some sources seem to be posts from news articles, which aren't the most reliable (articles from reputable peer-reviewed journals would be preferable). Drafted content doesn't say which sources were used, so cannot give feedback on which sections' sources should be improved.

Organization


 * A lot of potential additional sections. Sections seem to be divided appropriately, though adding all 10 sections seems impractical. Some sections are somewhat developed, while other sections are untouched.