User:Skw29/Artifact (archaeology)/Mij52 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? (Skw29)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Artifact (archaeology)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, not yet.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, although more detail could be added about the relevance of artifacts in the study of archeology.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, however this is likely due to the fact that there is only one major section in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? There is information provided in the introduction that does not appear in the later sections of the article, and this is because the introduction serves as a definition section more than an actual introduction.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead could be more concise and I think most of the detail that is there now could be moved to a different section.

Lead evaluation:
I think that the section that is currently the 'introduction' could remain as a separate section and a new section could be added to provide a more genuine introduction to set up the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The citations curated for the article are relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The citations are up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I believe more explanation of the examples provided could benefit the article.

Content evaluation:
The citations will add great content to the article when the content of them is added into the article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? No content has been added yet.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There is no bias present in the article.
 * 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
There is a balanced and neutral tone.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are lots of good sources in the user bibliography.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There could be a few more sources but the ones in the bibliography are thorough.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are mostly current (2003, 2014, 2020).
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links in the article work.

Sources and references evaluation
There are few sources in the article itself but the user bibliography has good new sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No content has been added to the article.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? no.

Organization evaluation
The organization of the article can be improved, which is what the author discussed doing in their sandbox.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, although the captions could explain what the artifacts revealed to archeologists.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? They could be more evenly spaced out.

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? yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There are few sources in the article and they could be more up to date.
 * 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.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The ideas for new content would improve the overall quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? no content has been added
 * How can the content added be improved? The organization could be improved for the article.