User:Silouettee20/Church Rockshelter No. 2 Site/Arodriguez860 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? (provide username)
 * Silouettee20
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * 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?
 * The into sentence only describes where the site is located. I think this is okay, though.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the lead does not do this. It describes the location, what the site includes, who discovered it and the evidence of different periods in which it existed. Maybe consider adding a sentence about the material evidence that was found. I see that you describe the different artifacts later and a summarizing sentence should be included in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Should (maybe) include the fact that it was excavated and the different dates of excavation.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise, maybe a little more detail could be added.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content is very relative. I think more could be added, but I'm sure it is still in the process.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes. If this is a new article, I would suggest finding some recent sources, although the one you used is pretty recent.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I'm not sure if this is done or not, but it doesn't feel like it's finished.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * All of the points are factual, so no.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, I did not feel persuaded.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the source was provided by Mallory.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The source is thorough. I would suggest looking for another.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes they are working.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No pictures as of right now.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There aren't any pictures to judge by right now.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There are no pictures.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No pictures.

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?
 * If this is a new article, consider finding another article that will provide further information and reinforce what you have so far.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * There is only one source right now. I'm sure there are additional sources available, but I may be wrong.
 * 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.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes. There are various links that lead to different articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, this article is a good start.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The current content is good but there is always room for improvement.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content added can be improved by adding more detail.