User talk:Gruwellj/Göbekli Tepe

Peer Review
Hi Joshua!

As I'm sure you know, the article on Göbekli Tepe is quite developed already. I was impressed with its presentation, clear separation of sections and extensive coverage of the topic. I saw that you added to the Interpretation section and I thought that your contribution was well written and appropriately placed. It fits in seamlessly with the rest of the article. The source that backs it from Nadja Pöllath also appears to be a solid, reliable one.

There are one or two things I think could be improved in the Lead. I was somewhat confused over what a “tell” is initially and what it has to do with the site. It is introduced in the Lead section rather quickly almost as if the authors assume we already know what it is and understand its association to Göbekli Tepe. One of the ways I think the article could be improved is a clarification of this. Another way I think the Lead could be improved is if parts of the Importance section (from the end of the article) were actually at the start in the Lead. For instance, in the Importance section it says that Göbekli Tepe could actually change archaeologist's understanding of what hunter-gatherers were capable of building and therefore our understanding of "a crucial stage in the development of human society." I think this could appear in the Lead. Also, the Interpretation section seems to draw heavily on the findings of Klaus Schmidt. That section might benefit from some different perspectives from other excavations if there have been any.

At this point, I think you could just continue to add reliable sources and content wherever else you see fit. You've done a great job so far! I've made more specific comments on the peer review template but I think these are the most important points. Feel free to email me if you have any questions. You can reach me at reb147@pitt.edu.

Happy editing!

- Rose

Rosemary Bencher (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)