User:Syknox1/Klasies River Caves/Phoeb.mh Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Syknox1


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Syknox1/Klasies River Caves
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Klasies River Caves

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead seems to have cut down on information that is in the current existing article's lead section. The lead does not address the main sections of the article and is a little too vague. The lead mentions that "the site provides significant evidence for hominin behavior and evolution during the Middle Stone Age on Africa's southeastern cape", but some examples of what this evidence is going to be would be useful in turning the lead into a synopsis of what you will talk about in the article. It will also help keep the reader invested and make them more likely to stay on the page and read the entire article.

I think you took out some things from the lead that could have stayed in- the mention of South Africa applying for it to be a World Heritage site gives readers an idea of the importance of the site. Also the argument for behaviorally modern humans is an important debate, so even if it was discredited it still may be worthwhile to keep it in the lead if you're going to discuss it later.

Content

The additions of information about the initial excavations and dating attempts are good. If anything, you may want to give short explanations on different technical concepts you mention (like the fynbos biome and the Witness Baulk, just to point out a couple) so that it is more accessible to readers who may not have any prior understandings.

I have the same comment for the section on lithic analysis. It might be worthwhile to give explanations of what debitage is, what freehand snapping it, etc. so that the readers aren't lost.

"Cooked foods provide quickly digestible energy and would have contributed to a higher quality diet sparking an evolutionary change in Homo sapiens" - This may just be my personal opinion, but I think this statement is a little too drastic. You can maybe rephrase it as cooked foods are one of the main proposed explanations for encephalization/evolutionary change, but I think "sparking" is too static of a word for evolution, which is a slow and gradual process.

In "significance/inferred behaviors", maybe add a link to Kalahari Debate and give a brief overview of what the debate is about and how the findings at Klasies tie into it.

Sources

The article needs more citations- at least 6 more for the purposes of class, but I think a reliable Wikipedia page should have many more than that. You did a good job of thoroughly citing your statements throughout the article, but since you don't have many references yet many of your statements come from the same source. Diversifying your sources of information will add to the credibility of the page.

Tone and Balance

The article is overall well-balanced and neutral. I would just be cautious at the part on cooking foods as the cause of evolutionary change in our lineage, it's an hypothesis so maybe reword it in a more objective manner. You hint at the Kalahari debate at the end of the article, so I would expand on it a little bit and explain what both sides think and how the site fits in to this debate.

Organization

The article is well-organized- you start with a description of the excavation/site history, then move into material evidence, and then talk about interpretations. I do see some areas where word choice could be improved. For example "sparking" as I'd mentioned before, and also:

Lithic artifacts do show variation through the various occupation stages of KRM. Howiesons Poort interrupts the relative uniformity seen in MSA I and MSA II: in the latter, large and long quartzite points and blades were the goal end products and were usually not retouched, while the Howiesons Poort lithics were made from a wider variety of materials and were fashioned into smaller blades and artifacts.

I don't think "artifacts" is the correct term at the end of this sentence because they are all artifacts. I thought maybe you meant that HP artifacts are as a whole smaller than in the other stages, but the word choice is a little misleading here. It could be worth considering restructuring this sentence.

Images and Media

You should try and add pictures to the article. You discussed stratigraphy and layering a lot, so images of the layers could help someone with no prior knowledge visualize it. An image of faunal remains or lithics would also be interesting as you mention those both in depth.

Overall Impressions

You improved the article by adding a lot of information and evidence that is not currently in the published article. I do feel that your proposed lead section could use an expansion, including a summary of the main points of the site and why it is of importance (this will convince the reader to not click away!). I also think you can improve on the article more by adding more sources. You have pulled a lot of information from the 9 sources you have, but the article will be much more credible if you expand on where all this information is coming from.