User talk:Lachain

Welcome!
Hello, Lachain, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Elysia and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Jebel Moya peer review (by Trachelophorus)
Overall I think your article looks really great and fleshed out, so apologies if some of this is a bit nit-picky.

Your lead is pretty short compared to how much is in the article, you could probably add a quick summary of a few more of the subheadings you have. The peer review guidelines for the lead say that it should have a “brief description of the article's major sections” so maybe keep this in mind.

I think your inclusion of the excavation history is something I’m going to add into my article (even though I won’t have nearly as much as you to talk about). I was wondering if perhaps you should include the “post-excavation” as a final subheading under the “excavation history” section rather than it’s own heading, I’m not sure I went back and forth here. Just a possible suggestion. Also I felt like maybe the excavation information would be better as the first section(s) of the article, before the section on dating. The dates seem like more a part of the archeological findings and would make more sense to come right before you start discussing mortuary systems and all of that, with the historical excavation stuff fully preceding all of the information actually about Jebel Moya archaeologically.

Some structural things- - gap before the “Petrographic study” section - citation needed at the end of the “1999 dental analysis” section - not sure if the colon is necessary after “Results” - more wiki links, particularly in the later sections - also a few small typos scattered throughout, I won’t try to list them but I’m sure you could catch them all if you read through again

The pottery section in particular could use some work (as I’m sure you know), there are some parts in there that I don’t think you were completely finished with before you published. In general I think the section is a bit complex and confusing anyhow, could probably use some reworking/simplifying (the largest paragraph is what I’m referring to specifically)

I think the “Artifact” section is a little bit confusing as far as organization, I’m guessing you were just going from source to source but that makes it a bit choppy. I was just thrown off by the extensive list of grave goods after stating how few grave goods are found, which I’m sure has something to do with the sheer amount of graves, but maybe some elaboration here would be helpful. Also as far as artifacts, as I’m sure you saw in the R12 article there’s also the option of going more in depth on specific types of artifacts found at the site and some of the context there, which isn’t inherently necessary but it’s something I’m considering doing in my article so I thought I would bring it up as a possibility for yours as well if you’re looking for something to elaborate further on.

I’m not sure if there is information available on this but if so maybe you could include within your “People of Jebel Moya” section some further info on a more chronological picture of habitation at the site- you sort of discussed it in a roundabout way by talking about physical anthropological analysis, but maybe you could include a paragraph (for example) that more explicitly brings this all together and describes origins and disbursement and things like that. Trachelophorus (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)