User:Rosemary Bencher/Archaeological ethics/Mellizzia 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? Rosemary Bencher
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Sandbox: User:Rosemary Bencher/sandbox
 * Article: Archaeological ethics

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? -- The lead has not been updated, but in the article's current state, it is already adequate and does not necessarily need to be updated!
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? -- Yes, it gives a good general description.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? -- Currently, there are no separate sections in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? -- No, the lead is very concise and does not include specific details at all.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? -- The lead is very concise :)

Lead evaluation
The lead is concise and gives a good, general description about what archaeological ethics is. That said, it is difficult to tell where the lead ends and the article begins -- adding separate sections would make this transition more evident, but I do not see it as a major issue.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? -- Yes, the content added to the article and drafted in the sandbox provides examples of ethical issues in archaeology and legislation that addresses these issues.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? -- Sources all seem to be relatively recent (published within the last 20 years) so the information seems to be up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? -- As with any article, I believe that more content could be added in the form of illustrative examples and further explanations. Specifically, I believe that each item in the list "Problem Areas in Archaeological Ethics" could be expanded and better defined with examples. However, I do not believe that the absence of this information greatly affects the article overall, and given time constraints, it is understandable if this information is not included -- just an idea! Other than that, all of the information in the article is relevant and contributes meaningfully to the article.

Content evaluation
The content that has been / will be added provides excellent illustrations of ethical problems in archaeology and overviews of the legislation and legal, punitive methods that address these issues. There are many places additional content could be added -- for example, explaining each item in the list "Problem Areas in Archaeology," or providing more information about the effects and critiques of NAGPRA -- but such additions are not necessary. Overall, the content is enlightening and relevant!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? -- The content Rosemary has added and plans to add is indeed neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? -- I would not say that any claims in the article are heavily "biased." Several of the adjectives that were already in the article (in particular, use of the words "unfortunately," "in all cases," and "Problem Areas") suggest a viewpoint that is less-than-neutral, but I would not say it's biased, just small errors in tone that should be fixed.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? -- I don't think any views are overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? -- The content Rosemary added is not persuasive and is purely informational!

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, the tone and balance of the article are good. It seems like it would be difficult to remain neutral when writing about ethics, but the article is mostly focused on the historical integration of ethical considerations into archaeology so I believe it is pretty neutral and balanced! That said, there are a few instances where the wording could be improved, noted above; changing these small errors would make the article completely neutral!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? -- Yes, the sentences Rosemary added are reliably sourced.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? -- The sources Rosemary added are useful, but I would not say they represent all of the available literature. Two of the three sources are are about DNA, and the third one is about NAGPRA, a specific example of archaeological ethics. The "External Links" would fill in many gaps in the "References" section though! (Side note: I checked the sources more thoroughly after writing this and they are good and informative sources!! However, I think the article would still benefit from sources specifically about the ethics of archaeologically, possibly from the external links!)
 * Are the sources current? -- Yes, as noted above, the sources are all relatively recent.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? -- All links in the reference section work. The external link "Rail Company desecrates St. Pancras cemetery" does not work, nor does the C.A.P.I. link.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources in the reference section that Rosemary added are good sources, and the information they added is also accurate and cited properly. The article has room for improvement in terms of references: many of the external links can be converted to actual references and be used to cite pre-existing information in the article, and some sentences, like the Elgin marbles sentence, may need sources altogether. Again, though, these are small changes and are not problems with Rosemary's work on the article!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? -- The sentences added so far are concise and understandable! More so than others in the article.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? -- No, it is well-written.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? -- No. There are no sections in the article which makes it hard to read. Additionally, the sentences added about DNA seem to be randomly thrown into the article. But to be fair, the article was poorly organized and chaotic to begin with.

Organization evaluation
In my opinion, organization is this article's weakest point. I believe it would benefit greatly from the addition of headings that split the article up. Adding headings would also make it easier to organize existing information more coherently. For example, one section could be "Areas of Interest" which could be comprised of the list "Problem Areas in Archaeological Ethics" and background information that is relevant to understanding the list. There could be additional sections for regional issues, such as a heading entitled "United States" or "North America," in which region-specific concerns and legislation could be discussed. The sentences Rosemary added provide good information, but I feel like reorganizing the article and adding headings would make the article much more readable!

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? -- Yes, the article originally had no pictures but Rosemary added one.
 * Are images well-captioned? -- The image is captioned with a very accurate description of the picture itself, but perhaps a sentence could be added about what the Parthenon Marbles have to do with archaeological ethics (e.g., "The British Museum's possession of the Marbles has been ethically questioned because they were removed from Greece under contested circumstances.") or maybe add more information in the article that makes the connection more evident.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? -- Yes, it is CC BY-SA 4.0.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? -- Yes, it looks nice.

Images and media evaluation
The image added illustrates an example of an ethical debate in archaeology and adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. Very good!

For New Articles Only (n/a)
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? -- Yes, the information added provides more context and specific examples in relation to archaeological ethics.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? -- The content added provides more information on American-specific legislation as well as explaining how DNA relates to archaeological ethics; these both contribute significantly to the article and add new dimensions to the discussion of archaeological ethics! Also, the picture added makes the article more visually appealing.
 * How can the content added be improved? -- I believe that the content added is not well-organized at the moment because the article was poorly organized to begin with. The content could be improved by reorganizing and adding headings. Additionally, time permitting, many of the "External Links" can be moved to the reference section and be used to fill in pre-existing citation gaps in the article.

Overall evaluation
Overall, this article is very good! Great work so far :)