Wikipedia:Peer review/Peru–Yale University dispute/archive1

Peru–Yale University dispute


I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like feedback on overall structure and scope. However, all comments are welcome.

Thanks, GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 13:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720
Great work on this article. I think this is really close to being ready for a GA nomination. Try to avoid short paragraphs like at the end of "Difference of opinion" and expand the sections that are a bit short. Can you incorporate the articles listed for Further Reading? That might give additional information for the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Z1720! Thanks so much for your comments. I agree there are short punchy sections which can be expanded. I'll look to the Further reading section to pull in more content of interest to the reader and flesh out the short sections. Thanks again! GuineaPigC77  ( 𒅗𒌤 ) ☕ 21:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Airship
If I were reviewing at FAC, I'd note: If you have any questions, please feel free to ping me here or on my talk page. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * that citations seem to be a bit over the top. If two sentences are sourced to the same reference, the first one doesn't need a citation unless it quotes the source. At present, at least one sentence cites the same source twice.
 * There are too many single sentence/short paragraphs, and three short level-2 sections. I'm not convinced that significance needs to be a section by itself.
 * The sections seem oddly organised. The Chronology section should be ordered chronologically, but you have these weird "Difference of opinion" & "Changing sentiment" sections in the middle.
 * I'm also unsure about the necessity of the quotes, especially considering their profligacy in the body. Are there any reasons that these quotes in particular have been selected? In any case, the first quote (Bingham's letter) needs to be sourced.
 * On that note, does Colin Renfrew's full job title really need to be given?
 * The tenses need to make sense. The present tense should not be used to describe a view ("points out", "states", etc.)