User:Tranquillitatis317/Archaeological ethics/Sarag720 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? Tranquillitatis317
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Archaeological ethics

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has not been updated. However, the user plans to add lots of sources and more discussion points in the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * I think the first sentence does a good job defining what archeological ethics is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does not mention the headings presented in the contents box. Perhaps you could add a sentence or two that would be a roadmap for the rest of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead mentions UNESCO but does not go into detail about it in the subheadings. Perhaps you could add a section about what UNESCO is and its impact.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is short and concise, but as stated above provides information about UNESCO which is not discussed in the article.

Lead evaluation
The lead has a good opening sentence which defines what archeological ethics is. I think the sentence about UNESCO should either be taken out or expanded upon in the subheadings- probably

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content the user plans to add will add a lot of valuable information to the article. The user plans to add lots of examples including the impact of NAGPRA as well as information about Kennewick man.  These will be very valuable to the article and provide some more specific examples.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes the content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The user could potentially add some more information about Ethnoarchaeology. I think that section could use some more information to better clarify the points. Maybe give a specific example of how this topic was used in real life.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does rate to historically underrepresented populations and topics.

Content evaluation
I think the user plans to add a lot of good information that would be valuable to the article. The Kennewick man could potentially be used to better explain ethnoarcheology. I would like there to be more information about UNESCO since that is only mentioned once in the article and is not really clarified. The user also plans to add an example about Egypt and to better clarify NAGPRA.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content appears to be neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There is no bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are no particular viewpoints.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * There is no persuasion.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the article is fine. Nothing to edit here.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The user has collected a lot of sources they plan on adding.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources the user has found are current. I think the sources in the wiki article need work because there are not many specific examples, but the user has found a lot that would provide specific examples.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the sources are written by a variety of authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links do work.

Sources and references evaluation
The user has found a lot of great sources. They all are current examples of archeological ethics.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The overall wiki article could clarify some topics better, specifically UNESCO and under the Ethics in Ethnoarchaeology subheading the The Nuremburg Code (1947) and the Declaration of Helsinki.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not find any spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is organized well. I noticed you want to include a section called Codes of Conduct at Institutes/ Professional Organizations.  You could probably add that before the preservation section. I think that would be the best place to put it because the preservation and Ethnoarchaeology subheadings kind of summarize everything.

Organization evaluation
I think the content is organized well but could be expanded upon. UNESCO needs to be defined and expanded upon, but I think you have found a lot of great sources to expand upon everything else.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * I do not think the picture captioned "Display case of Nubian antiquities in the Musée d'Art et d'Histoire of Geneva." does a great job adding anything to the article. Nubian artifacts are not even mentioned and the picture does not even showcase the artifacts, just the display case.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The captions are fine for the images. Just make sure that each image is relevant to what you have already discussed in the article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, there are no copyright violations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The images are laid out correctly.

Images and media evaluation
I think you could replace the one image with the image you are planning on adding.It show cases the actual display better. However, make sure it ties into the article. Perhaps write a sentence or two of the piece in the article.

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I think the content you plan to add definitely will enhance the article. It will give more relevant examples and clarify some confusion in the article like  NAGPRA.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * You have a variety of sources and a new image. These sources contain lots of information of examples that will be very useful and the image better showcases an actual artifact.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * You can expand upon UNESCO. In lecture 1 week 4 instructor Kennedy discussed UNESCO very well.  She also listed a lot of examples of repatriation which could also be something you talk about. Infact, the only time repatriation is mentioned in the article is when listing the full name of NAGPRA, so that could be discussed even more. You could talk about the Euphronious krater, bronze plaques from Berlin, and Elgin marbles which were all mentioned in lecture.

Overall evaluation
Overall I think you have done a great job finding sources and planning what you want to expand on your article. I suggest replacing the one picture of the display case with an actual display. In addition, try working in the examples we talked about in lecture to the article that have to do with repatriation. We discussed at least 3 that can be added to the article for examples. I think you have a lot of great ideas and they can be very beneficial to anyone who wants to look at this wikipedia page.