User:RobbyGreg/Wilton culture/Syknox1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

RobbyGreg


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RobbyGreg/Wilton_culture?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Lead
The lead is a little long. Condense it into ~5-7 sentences and highlight the main implications / significance. I would include the type of technologies in the lead so readers know what the main focus of the article is about. The lead also explains too much; try to give an overview of the main implications about human evolution that we learn from this culture. Don't explain too much since you're covering it later in the article!

Content
Consider adding more wiki-links throughout. You do a great job explaining exactly what you’re talking about so that the layperson can understand.

The last section reads like a conclusion (avoid those) and needs some citations.

Is there anything that unites users of Wilton culture other than the material culture, especially since they are such a diverse group? Try placing more emphasis on foraging as a commonality in the beginning of the article. "Despite covering a large area with diverse environments, the users of Wilton culture were united by their shared foraging practices" or something similar.

Tone and Balance
The article appears to be neutral and not persuasive. However, the diet section seems a bit overrepresented. Within the diet section you discuss some Wilton sites that hadn’t been discussed previously. I would list these sites in the intro to the section and describe that you will be discussing sites that show the variation in diets across the geographic distribution in the section intro. This section seems a bit length, so maybe you can condense this by listing the available food sources and its significance / the significance of temporal diet changes

Sources and References
You include a plethora of sources from the available literature from reliable peer-reviewed sources. You chose quality sources from a variety of authors. ITs great that you included sources from the original archaeologists at some of the sites to represent their interpretations and findings.

Of the 48 sources you’ve included, only 7 are from the last 3-5 years. Are there any more new research publications that you could incorporate? Also some of your sources are only cited once or twice, is there more information you could pull from these?

Check the technology section and the last paragraph to make sure everything has a source cited.

Organization
Consider using some subheadings to break up the text in each section (Background and History / Diet). The sandbox reads like an essay right now; you have a lot of great information, but focus on making it more consumable for users. Incredible improvement from the original article overall.

The lead section is a little long and could probably fit under the Background section with a subheading – perhaps something like “changes in scientific interpretations of wilton culture” or something less wordy than that. Along with this, you can create another subheading for excavation history with a bulleted list of sites and dates.

If you’re able to, include a section that demarcates the culture area and describes the ecology/ environment of the site. Parts of your first paragraph of the background section does a good job of this, so you could make that a separate heading. I would also suggest a separate dating / stratigraphy/ geology section that could potentially be included as a subsection within the environment section (or vice versa since they seem related).

Images and Media
It's awesome that you're going to include an interactive map; that will help readers with site context. The other images that you included are helpful for establishing the environment of the site and the material culture – the pictures of backed tools / scrapers that you plan to add will contribute a lot to that section. This will be a significant improvement from the original article that didn't have any media.