User:Silouettee20/Church Rockshelter No. 2 Site/111tned111 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? Silouettee20
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Silouettee20/Church Rockshelter No. 2 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? Nope
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise and easy to follow.

==== Lead evaluation: The lead section is really strong. For some reason it looked kind of short, but it hits every single major thing. Keeping the section concise was a big plus, and it ties in well to how the rest of the article is structured. I wouldn't change anything, unless you feel the need to elaborate more but it's up to you. ====

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: I liked that you broke down the site into each type of artifact recovered, it makes it much easier to follow. I'm not sure if you want to cut the Significance portion and sort of weave it into the other ones because that section seems a little light. Or maybe adding some geographic context or information about the people might help supplement the section. ====

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

==== Tone and balance evaluation: It felt very neutral and not overly-preachy with the theories and hypotheticals. Nice usage of "suggest" to avoid making a bold statement. Maintains a calm tone throughout, and reads like any other Wikipedia article! ====

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? Sort of. (2013 is a while back, but it honestly depends on whether more articles came up about the site)
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, this is awesome! Liked that you linked it to some other Wikipedia pages!

==== Sources and references evaluation: Really neat usage of hyperlinks, I've gotta remember to do that for my own article. The dates are okay, I don't think it really matters that it's from 2013 if that's the most "updated" version. Other than that, well done! ====

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I could see.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

==== Organization evaluation: As I've previously stated, the only criticism might be finding some way to either bolster the Significance Section, or spread it out amongst the other sections. It's definitely quite important, but for some reason I feel like more could be added. ====

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


 * 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? No, but the expected sources are only the assigned article so it's A-OK.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Probably not, but it hits the minimum required for the assignment.
 * 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, all Wikipedia article conventions are followed.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, very useful indeed.

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? Organization of the finds is well-done, lead section is concise and easy-to-follow, and the hyperlinking to other sites is exceptional.
 * How can the content added be improved? See other comments about the Significance, and maybe one more source, but those are just cherrypicking.