User:NotPaulDirac/Luminescence dating/Kww14 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) NotPaulDirac
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Luminescence dating and sandbox: User:NotPaulDirac/Luminescence dating

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Unsure if peer adde lead or not
 * 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?
 * No
 * 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
The lead is good aside from needing sources to verify information that appears in it. Peer may want to include an overview of the topics to come later in the article, in the lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Many of the sources are older, Peer may want to check to make sure they do not need updated
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Content appears to all be relevant, but peer may want to add info about how the process of luminescence dating is completed by archaeologists

Content evaluation
Existing content is good, but more detail may need added about methods of luminescence dating

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 and balance is good and does not need fixed

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Unsure which content is new, added by Peer, but in lead and first paragraph of "conditions and accuracy" section, more citations are needed to back up language that appears in article
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Sources appear to be reliable
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some sources are current, but many are from pre-2000
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Of the several links I checked, all were in good working order, although source 6 under "notes" was in a different language so I could not verify whether or not this is a good source

Sources and references evaluation
The article is in need of more sources, although the sources currently used appear to be fine. Peer may want to double-check older sources to make sure they are still relevant to this subject matter.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Some language in this article may be overly technical
 * 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

Organization evaluation
The article appears to be well-organized, and organization for this article does not appear to be an issue.

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?
 * Not applicable; article contains no images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Not applicable
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Not applicable

Images and media evaluation
The article lacks images and media. Peer can improve article by finding, captioning, and including images relevant to this article to enhance it.

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?
 * I cannot tell what new information Peer has added to the article, but the existing information in the article appears to be good and mostly complete. If the peer has already written in this article, they have done well.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of this article is that it is well-organized, has a neutral tone, and contains a lot of sources.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * This article can be improved by the addition of pictures as well as sources for information that currently lacks citation.

Overall evaluation
This is a concise and informative article which succeeds in its structure, organization, and information. This article lacks pictures, so Peer should add and caption some pictures relevant to this topic, and add sources to parts of the article that do not have backing by outside sources. Over all, the tone and language of this article demonstrate that it is well-written.