User talk:Rbrasted/Prei Khmeng, Cambodia/Banana.oceans Peer Review

Peer Review

General info Whose work are you reviewing?

CrustyToast and Rbrasted

Link to draft you're reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rbrasted/Prei_Khmeng%2C_Cambodia?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) None

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead: As I'm reviewing the list above, I have some feedback. First, I think your lead provides a lot of great and concise information, however, I would be interested to have a better understanding of why this site is important and how it fits into the bigger picture. I also notice that you use the word twelfth in the first paragraph and numbers for the latter; I would suggest choosing #s over words in this situation, given this is what was done for the rest of the article. It looks like you are working on having sections devoted to different aspects of this site, such as specific artifacts and mortuary practices, which is perfect since you introduced these topics in your lead. I would recommend making sure to provide further details about the tools you mentioned as well.

Content: The content and sections for said content that I viewed was very relevant to the topic at hand. I am also impressed by the number of sources published within the last 10 years and think it's cool that you are able to find such up-to-date information regarding your site (this is one difficulty my group member and I have encountered when writing about Memotien Circular Earthworks!). I think this would also be helpful in creating an article that may be better representative of the people and subject matter as your sources likely adhere to stricter standards of archeological practice and (hopefully) are working in a less biased/ colonial context and mindset. Lastly, I appreciate the headings included as well, even if they do not contain fully developed information, it's helpful to see where your article is going!

Tone and Balance: Your content is very neutral in my opinion, well done! The only thing I would address further is the term "well-dated" styles of pottery, as in: how and what makes these artifacts "well-dated"? As I am not overly familiar with your site, I would also consider, if applicable, including alternative theories regarding dates of habitation or initial construction, etc. (so long as they are not fringe theories or the like). This could enhance balance within your article and contribute to readers coming to their own conclusions. However, your article does not seem to blatantly attempt to persuade readers in one direction or another.

Sources and References: First and foremost, all of your links are fully functional- yay! I can also see that you include analysis from archeologists of varying backgrounds and journals as well. Furthermore, your sources are current and reflect various academic journals, without citing other sources such as news articles. From looking into your articles more, it also looks like they cover numerous topics of relevance regarding Prei Khmeng.

Organization: I appreciate how concise your content is. Your writing doesn't include unnecessary fluff or other distractions for the reader. One thing to keep in mind throughout this process is any grammatical/ fluency concerns that may affect your reader. However, since this is a work in progress, I don't consider this to be a point of major consequence for the time being. Once again, your headings provide an excellent indication of where your article is going, but also what areas of interest will be covered, which is great for me as a reader!

Images and Media: Not applicable at this time

For New Articles Only: This article does meet Wikipedia's Notability Requirements and contains a number of sources from different scholarly journals. It follows similar headings to other articles regarding similar areas and has links to other relevant articles within.

Overall Impressions: In all, I am impressed by the work you've done so far and think you have a solid foundation to work upon. This includes: sources, organization of content, and concise information. At this point, I only have minor critiques which are described above. Nicely done!

Banana.oceans (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)