User talk:Mvaba00/sandbox

Peer Review by Marta Tkachuk
According to the peer review training, there is supposed to be a lead section that introduces and gives a brief overview of your topic. It looks like you still only have the outline posted and I am not sure if there is a lead section. If your three subfields of archeology are meant to function as the lead, then that gives a great introduction to your article as a whole.

Your structure is very concise and I like that you provided the history of archaeology before delving into your content. It helps me, as the reader, have a context which works as an excellent foundation. I am a bit confused on where you plan to include your three subfields within the article. They might fit well right after "notable names in the field" and before "methods", however thats a judgement call for you to make.

In terms of balanced coverage, it looks like your history and methods section has the most amount of content. It makes sense for notable names in the field to not be very lengthy, however I would focus on having all the other sections equal length. With that being said, if you are indeed adding the three subcategories mentioned before, those would be very strong if the content coverage was at equal length.

As I was reading your outline, your content reads very neutrally! I wouldn't really be able to guess which side you lean on, especially because a topic like this is prone to relying on empirical data as opposed to opinion. It is interesting that you can still apply a positive tone to the article without it sounding like you have a personal agenda. Overall, your neutrality is very concise in your article.

Your sources also seem very reliable. Not only that, you have a nice variety of sources and you aren't repeating any; that really strengthens your article. It does appear that your section on significance/applications is not cited which can be concerning for the reader. I am not sure if that section is your own opinion or if you retrieved that claim from a source, either way, it would be good if you either added a source or added material that is already sourced.

Overall, this is a great start!

24.23.22.142 (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC) Marta Tkachuk

Lead Section: The Archaeobotany section is very concise, informative, and unbiased. The zooarchaeology and geoarchaeology sections would benefit from more comprehensive descriptions and examples, however.

Overall Structure: The structure is fluid but I suggest possibly integrating more examples of archaeobotany, zooarchaeology, and geoarchaeology into the rest of your content to highlight their relevance.

Balanced Coverage: I like the inclusion of multiple topics all centered around environmental archaeology.

Reliable Sources: The number of sources you have is decent, maybe add one or two more.

Overall: I really have never been exposed to environmental archaeology before reading your content and found it very eye opening and informative! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannonnancysw (talk • contribs) 20:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Rachel Wolff Peer Review Response
Thanks so much, Mikayla for your comments. They were really helpful. I appreciate you pointing out the bias, as that was something I totally didn't pick up on. I'll definitely spend some time making my article more neutral and removing access info while editing. Thanks again for your review! Rrwolff21 (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Feedback
Hello,

This is Noah Venethongkham and I wanted to thank you for reviewing my article! I added more about the history of Laos energy and the reason it choose hydropower. Thank you! NaoBao (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)