User:ShanHassan/Zooarchaeology/Skw29 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? ShanHassan
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Zooarchaeology

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? New content has not been added since June 15th. Nevertheless, the lead focuses on the details behind faunal remains and what zooarchaeology allows us to learn. However, it does not highlight or acknowledge the following major sections: Development, Techniques, Examples from Prehistory and Related fields.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the first sentence provides a simple definition of zooarchaeology.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Refer to the first bullet point in this section. I list the major sections that it does not include.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? I feel that the content contained in the Lead is relevant to the body of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I would say that it is concise and can be built on by highlighting the major sections a little more.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? All content is relevant to the topic and contributes to the article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think a specific case study example would fit well into the "Uses" section. It would be a nice compliment to the questions that are listed. You can elaborate on the case study by showing how it answers specific questions about the past.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral; it provides information without persuading.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the content is neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Like I said previously, the "Uses" section could be improved with a case study. Also, the Lead and Body can be better aligned. Some of the major sections that I brought up earlier need to be inserted into the Lead. Furthermore, the introduction goes in depth about faunal remains but there is not much content on this topic in the Body. Perhaps adding a section that dives deeper into faunal remains can be beneficial.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content is neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No new content but current article is backed up by reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are thorough. However, I came across a textbook PDF that may be helpful. Here is the link: https://laboratorioarqueozoologiauaslp.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/reitz-wing-2008-zooarchaeology.pdf
 * Are the sources current? They range from 1996-2015. Some are relatively recent while others are relatively dated.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? They all work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Overall, it is well-written. One recommendation I would make is to go through and look for any run-on sentences. Make any that you see more concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not spot any technical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Major points are reflected. You just need to make sure that the Lead reflects major topics brought up in the Body and vice-versa.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? I feel that more pictures of faunal remains would help enhance the article.
 * Are images well-captioned? The first image could use further information if you are able to find any information on what animal mummies have done for the field of zooarchaeology.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, I believe they do.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? They are visually appealing in regard to the layout of the article.

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? All sources are tied into archaeology.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The list of sources is thorough. I would look into the textbook that I recommended earlier to possibly add to the list.
 * 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? Yes, the patterns looked sufficient to me.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, it does this throughout the whole article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? No further content was added. However, I believe if changes are made based on my recommendations then the article has potential to be even more solid than it is now.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? N/A.
 * How can the content added be improved? N/A.