User:Trh50/Feature (archaeology)/Meghana Vemulapalli 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? Trh50
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Feature (archaeology)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
Overall, I would say the Lead is pretty well written. The very first sentence is kind of long, so maybe splitting it up would make the introductory sentence more precise. I would maybe mention "Generic Feature Types" in the Lead as it is the only section in the article. Other than this, I think the Lead is pretty good and well written and explains what features are well.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content is written in list form, and gets to the point of what the section is talking about. I would maybe provide a short definition for each bullet point so that readers can get a better understanding of all the different "Generic Feature Types".

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
I don't really have much to say here. Everything seems pretty neutral in tone, and nothing is overly presented or underrepresented.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
From what I can tell, everything looks good. There was only one source that was used, so I would maybe try and get a few more sources. This could come from adding those definitions I mentioned above.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Everything is pretty well written, organized, and easy to follow. There were a few sentences like the introductory one that were kind of long, so splitting them up might be helpful.

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


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There were no images in this article. However, it could be helpful to add a few to give examples of what various features look like.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article gets to the point about what features are, what purposes they serve in archaeology, and how they differ from other aspects of archaeology. If anything, I would touch a little bit on the "generic feature types" in the Lead, add definitions in the content, and a few pictures.