User:Phoeb.mh/Howiesons Poort/C99L35 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Phoeb.mh


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Phoeb.mh/Howiesons Poort


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Howiesons Poort

Lead
The first sentence of the lead section gives a general overview of what HP is. In the context of this article this is important as it removes any confusion the reader might have about what the page is actually about given that HP is named after an archaeological site. Something that might be helpful to include a range of dates or simply say they are from the MSA to situate the reader temporally. However, in the live article there is a template that shows the technological sequence, so this suggestion might not be necessary. The lead reflects the added content and does so concisely, which is impressive given the scope of the article and the amount of detail it contains. Overall, this lead provides a great summary of the topic that is informative and accessible.

Content
The added content significantly improves the page. I think the transformation of the Technology section is very impressive. I especially appreciated the content you added in the typology section where you describe backed blades and their possible use. In general, the content you added provides much needed context for HP in terms of use (the foraging and diet section), the environmental context, and information that highlights why HP is a significant technocomplex by discussing hypotheses for Transitions to Post-Howiesons.

Tone and Balance
This article has a neutral tone and the language employed when presenting archaeological interpretations makes it clear where those interpretations are coming from. The Symbolic Behavior section is notable in this regard as you either mention researchers by name or indicate something is the opinion of some researchers rather than being universally accepted.

Sources and References
The reference material cited in this article is extensive and multiple sources are implemented in each section of the article. The one thing I did notice was that there are a few unreferenced statements that could benefit from adding references. Specifically, the subsection on comparisons to other technocomplexes because only one reference is used in this subsection. Overall, your synthesis your sources shows that you have an excellent command of the topic.

Organization
The organization of the page is very strong. I appreciate the order in which you have presented the various topics. The way you organized your subsections in the Technology section contributes to the comprehension of the added content. If you plan to expand your section on transition to post-Howiesons it might be helpful to group together particular hypotheses based on a common theme or line of evidence related to the hypotheses. For example, hypotheses that are supported or refuted by climatic data could be grouped together.

Images and Media
The map that connects to the ROAD data is an invaluable addition to the page. I really apricated how it will provide Wikipedia users with additional information that they might not normally have access to and help visualize the geographic extent of HP sites. Your inclusion of the HP typology image is also a worthwhile addition, especially considering the higher level of detail you provide regarding the typology in comparison with the current page.

Overall Impressions
One of the greatest strengths of this article is the way it synthesizes a large body of research a cohesive and accessible manner. The organization of the page also contributes to the accessibility and cohesiveness. The map was also a great addition. As I said before, if you plan to add to the Transition to Post-Howiesons you might want to add some subsections.