User:RememeberThePlacidium/Chan Chich Site/WeiCui-ucsb 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? User:RememeberThePlacidium
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:RememeberThePlacidium/Chan Chich Site

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * 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? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The last sentence might be a little bit over derailed; the rest of the lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
Good introduction, I recommend to draft the last sentence a little bit more concisely and leave the detailed information to your "Excavation" section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.

Content evaluation
For the topics you have already put on, they are very hollistic and rich in information. However, It might be good if you could combine your "1990s Excavation" and "2014 Excavation" into one big section because they discuss similar topic.

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? Just right.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
The neutrality of your article is kept well; I really think that your tone and balance are perfect.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No links provided at the moment.

Sources and references evaluation
I understand that at this time you have not yet put on the link to your article. Please do so latter and double check that the links would work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. The contents are very clear.
 * 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? Have space for improvement.

Organization evaluation
Your subheadings are well organized; again, It might be better if you cambine "Excavation" sections. Please remember to also include sections for geography, history, etc.

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?

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? One source would be included due to the requirement.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? No list of sources right now.
 * 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? Most of features are there, except the links and bibliography.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No.

New Article Evaluation
The article's content so far is already good, therefore you can work on adding links of articles of some important terms just like the normal articles do.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Strong and informative.
 * How can the content added be improved? complement the other required sections; working on details to improve the articles accessability.

Overall evaluation
The tone and content here so far has shown the level of an experienced wikipedia editor. Only minor imperfection presents due to the incompletion. Please further enrich the content and I believe this article would certainly become an interesting one.