User:RBlanchard20/31CH758 Site/Sabajian 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)
 * RBlanchard
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:RBlanchard20/31CH758 Site

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
'''- This lead does an amazing job at giving small bits of information that I assume will be gone over in more depth throughout the rest of the article. The introductory sentence includes the name of the site, where it is located, the date, and the time period. It also gives some educational information in terms of context for readers who may not be familiar with certain features. I especially think it was really informative to point out why the area was good for tool use and it is something I intend to use when writing my article.'''

'''- Although the major sections aren't stated you can tell from the well written lead what information is to follow in the article. There is information on the location, tool use, significance, and excavation.'''

'''- The information in the article points out a lot of significance about the location and environment of the site and how that is important to many factors in the site. This lead does a great job of emphasizing that from the very beginning.'''

'''- The lead is very concise, yet still gives enough important information to set the reader up for the rest of the article. The lead flows very well and is organized in a manner that makes it interesting to read.'''

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
N/A

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
'''- The tone and balance of the lead are very neutral and strictly informative. It is very concise and straight to the point so I assume the rest of the content will follow in this manner, making for an extremely well written article.'''

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
'''- The information from the article is very clearly reflected even in just the lead of this article. The detailed information is efficiently summed up in the beginning.'''

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
N/A

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?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
'''- This article can only move forward from here! The lead is already incredibly strong and is a great set up for the information to come. I would say for the rest of the article, the student should go off of the information in the lead in more detail to help understand the site as a whole.'''