User:WesternGoblin/Gournia/Charlie Sewall Peer Review

General info
WesternGoblin
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:WesternGoblin/Gournia - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Gournia - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:
The lead looks good to me. It's informative but it isn't too much information. I think it covers everything the article goes over. I would consider deleting the sentence about Harriet Boyd Hawes and its excavation because it is mentioned elsewhere and not necessary for the intro.

Clarity/Organization/Content:
I appreciate that you removed the timeline/dating section. I don't think that was necessary and the new dates you've added are much more useful to a general audience. I think that the archaeology piece that you moved to the history section is really good and fits better there. There is an odd wording/typo in the first sentence of that section that got moved over though. There is a picture of the white bull's head included twice that might do for some more context.

I think the archaeology section would do better after the history section because it related more to the cemeteries and tombs.

If possible, it would be nice to get more information about the megaron mentioned in the history section. More about the palace would also be great. I know you mentioned the pictures, and a layout for the palace with a description would be helpful.

The last few lines in your largest paragraph in the history section has some information that may not be relevant to the rest of the page. I'm not sure if they are worth getting rid of, but as there are no facts about Gournia specifically, they may not be necessary. Also the sentence just before this (starting with "this occupation") is a bit odd sounding and could use rewording.

Your fragments section may be better placed in the archaeology or history section. At least the part about the Linear A tablets might fit well with the descriptions of other artifacts found at Gournia.

If you have more about any of the other tombs, that would be great to include. The last sentence of the first paragraph of the tomb II section is very long and a bit clunky.

Coverage/Balance:
I think you cover the information on the page well, but if you find more information from the other archaeologists beyond Hawes, it could offer different perspectives on the site. The article feels a bit Hawes heavy at the moment. However, part of this problem is that Hawes is mentioned by name but other people such as Soles are not. Mentioning more people by name or Hawes less in general may help this issue.

Content Neutrality:
It looks good to me. The only issue that could be present is the amount of source material that comes from Hawes vs other archaeologists could be seen as swaying towards her opinions over other researchers.

Sources:
Both sections about the tombs could use more footnotes if possible as there are only a few there. They are also from the same source, and it would be great to see some information from another if there is one. As you said, pictures would be wonderful and a layout of Gournia would be great.

Present sources look fine/reputable to me.