User:Trip732/Rose Cottage Cave/Phiferv514 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? Trip732
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Rose Cottage Cave

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?
 * Yes, the first sentence was strong because it discussed the site's location. This provides an introduction into what the site was.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the article discusses who excavated the site, the characteristics of the site, and human habitation and behavior while the site was occupied.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the Lead was relevant to all of the information presented later in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead was concise and well-written. It was easy to follow because it only focused on the overall qualities of the site, and it discussed when people inhabited the site.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the Lead was well done. It was not too detailed, and it focused on what was later presented, including the technological innovations of the time. I would not change any aspect of the Lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all of the content is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There could be more specific information about the excavators, and there could be more images.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * All of the content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * 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.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There seems to be much more literature on the subject that can be included.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * All of the content is very easy to follow. It is not too technical, and it is genuinely interesting.
 * 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?
 * Yes, all of the content is well-organized. The subheadings are very useful in organizing the information, making it very easy to read.

Organization evaluation
Overall, the organization of the passage was done well. In the future, the author should continue to use these sub-headings because it allows for the information to be more easily processed, and it allows the reader to jump from section to section.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the map provided allows the reader to understand the location of the site.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The image included has a proper caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

Images and media evaluation
The author should include at least one more image of the what the actual site looks like, not just its location. While the location is interesting, I am curious to see the type of art and technologies created at the site, which can be visually represented.

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?
 * The author includes seven references, which makes the reader question if there is more literature out there on Rose Cottage Cave. However, the literature he/she cited looks reliable, with numerous journals referenced.
 * 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, the article looks very professional.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * There are numerous articles that link to Rose Cottage Cave, including "List of caves in South Africa" and archaeologist Lyn Wadley's Wikipedia page.

New Article Evaluation
The author did an excellent job with his/her article. It includes a lot of technological innovations from the site, as well as cultural innovations and the environment of the landscape. However, he/she could include more information about the cultural innovations, since that section seems short. He/She could also make a separate section about excavations and the archaeologists' specific finds.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the article looks like it is going well. There could be more information provided, but so far it flows well.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Strengths of the content includes the specific types of tools mentioned, and how these tools evolved. She also mentioned numerous archaeologists who have excavated on the site, which was a nice addition.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content could include more references to discuss other technological and cultural innovations from the time. Furthermore, the inclusion of a picture of what the site looks like could be important for the article.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article was done extremely well. It was written clearly, the subheadings fit the article best, and it was interesting. However, there is still much more research that can be conducted on this topic. It would also be interesting to know about the protections of the site. I genuinely did enjoy reading the article because I was previously unfamiliar with this topic. Since reading the article, I am now familiar with the environment of the area, as well as the inventions of the time.