User:PrettyCoolTool98/Charles N. Darrah/Caveman1989 Peer Review

Lead

The lead is concise and not overly detailed. The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly summarizes the topic. However, the introduction is a little awkward to read (I had to slowly re-read it several times), so I would suggest trying rephrasing the sentence somehow so that it is smoother to read. The lead paragraph does not have a brief description of the article’s major sections, but it does have a table of contents. Watch out for grammatical errors too: there are a few times where “an” should be used instead of “a”.

Content

Content is really good and lends to a good variety of topics. Content is also up to date and recent.

Tone and Balance

The tone and balance of the article are neutral and matter-of-fact. It is not biased and does not attempt to persuade the reader. As far as balance goes, I would recommend adding a bit more content to each section.

Sources and References

All the links to the source work and are current! There are diverse sources, however, I did not see that many academic articles referenced.

Organization

Sections are clear and divided appropriately. However, I would do another proofread of the page for grammatical errors. Under the section Career/Projects there is a sentence where a word is skipped. “and has written” should have a “he” before “has”. That is just one example of other “skips” I found. I would also recommend reading the article out loud, or having someone read the article out loud to the author; some sentences are hard to read and do not flow so easily. The content is excellent, but it can be lost by the uneasiness of the sentence structure. I would also suggest referring to Darrah by his name more and avoid using pronouns, especially at the beginning of a new paragraph or new section.

New Article

This appears to be a new article. The article does have 2-3 secondary sources, but as mentioned before, I did not see many academic articles. Infoboxes are lacking and could be added to the article in order to make the article a little more robust. It also does not appear that the article links to other articles.

Overall Impression

The overall article has a lot of good content. I would recommend spending more time proofreading and adding more content to the article such as linking words and phrases like San Jose State University to its Wikipedia page and “applied anthropology” to its Wikipedia page, etc. Also as a reader I got left “hungry for more information”, so I would suggest adding a little more content to each of the sections.