User:Redalligator3/Oneota/Crutchfieldc Peer Review

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Henryp011


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Redalligator3/Oneota


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

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]
Hi Henry, here is my peer review of your article:

Lead


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?- Looking at the current state of the live article, your new lead section is a great start and so far, it is very clear
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic- Your lead starts off very strong with a description of the Oneota
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?- Coming from the previous version of the live article, the draft of the lead has a strong start but is still incomplete which would include the major sections

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?- Yes, there is an extensive amount of information about the Oneota. In addition to the abundance of information there is a wide variety of different topics covered. For example "Chronology", "History", "Lifestyle", "Relationships"... the amount of detail so far is great
 * Is the content added up-to-date?- Yes, there are various sources in the references section that have been written int he past 5 - 10 years. The only suggestion I would make is to look into the older sources and see if there are any new updates or discoveries regarding those topics. Although it is only 24 years old I would look and see if there are any updates about the "Indian mounds of Wisconsin"
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?- Most of the sections of the article body seem to be relatively complete. The only two sections that stand out as missing content are the "Chronology" and "History" sections.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral?- Throughout there is a neutral tone and a strong focus on evidence based facts which is great. For example, when you said "Evidence suggests that these villages relied more on agriculture than the typical Oneota community. Furthermore, it appears that the importance of agriculture increased at the Tremaine sites as time went on and as their populations grew." phrases like "evidence suggests" and "it appears" were used in a manner that kept the tone of the article neutral.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?- Yes, for the most part. Most of your points in the article body and lead have citations, I would continue to work through the article body and lead and add citations when possible
 * Are the sources current?- Yes, there is a wide range of sources from the last 5 years and the oldest sources is only 24 years old which is great as your information is current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors?- Yes, there is a wide range of authors even some well known archaeologist like Pauketat

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?- Yes, the content is very clear and interesting to read
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There aren't any overbearing grammatical errors that I have found but with every writing based project grammatical and spelling errors are inevitable so I it would be wise to proofread your edits.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?- Yes, there are various sections throughout the draft each of which are well organized and presented well

Images and Media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?- Currently, your article lacks images or media. I believe this would be one of the most important improvements you can make to your article.

Overall Impressions

Your draft article is already a huge step up from the previous article! Your draft has lots of well presented information that is very concise and easy to read. I would focus on adding more information to the "History" and "Chronology" sections of the article. I really enjoyed the notable sites section. Along with more information in those sections I would focus on adding some images and media this would improve your article. Overall, your article is a huge step up from the original article!