User:Shelby672/Lower Walnut Focus/Alejandro1123 Peer Review

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Positives:


 * 1) Nice list of references
 * 2) The formatting looks solid
 * 3) Definitely seemed like neutral content without biases

3 Areas of Improvement:


 * 1) The structure of the Artifacts could look cleaner and more detailed.
 * 2) . Add citations or references in your paragraphs.
 * 3) The "Archaeological Sites" paragraph could probably use more sub-headings to keep the content looking cleaner. You could possibly divide sections based on location, what was found on those sites, etc.

3 Suggestions for how to improve:


 * 1) Add more information about the artifacts
 * 2) The introduction could have more background information about the "Lower Walnut Focus is one of three major areas for archaeological sites." Probably should go a little more in-depth about what and why aspects of this paragraph.
 * 3) Add more information about the Wichita paragraph. For example, "there has been some archaeological evidence that suggests that the Wichita people had connections with the Spanish, Puebloan, and Pawnee." What archaeological evidence?