User:Lachain/Jebel Moya/Archaeologycheesewiz Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Lachain
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Jebel Moya

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Maybe say that it is a site of a pastoralist cemetery in the first sentence instead of saying archaeological site?
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, but there is a table of contents and I am not sure if that covers that
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Does not seem like it.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is very concise and could even maybe provide more information.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes!
• Is the content added up-to-date? For the most part, but early sources you use are needed for the sections you created.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Nothing that I can think of.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
• Are the sources current? Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I think that overall sentence structure can be improved.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I think there are a couple grammatical errors. I mention some at the bottom of this page.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes! You could possibly add more subsections to your sections to elaborate more.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes! There is a nice picture of the excavation.
• Are images well-captioned? Yes!
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Think so
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Maybe consider putting the map above the image?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes!
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• I think you did a really good job at finding a lot of vital information about the site. You go into a wide array of topics and you make them interesting to read about. I also think that your images are super cool. I could not find any images about my site, so it is nice to see. I like all of your different sections and think that they are nicely organized. I like that you used many sources and a variety of sources.
• How can the content added be improved?
• I am not sure why the White Nile is mentioned in the first paragraph underneath the environment section. I also think that the third sentence of this section should be revised. In this same paragraph you should give a brief description of what Jebel et Tomat is. Also not sure if citations should ever be located in the middle of sentences. I would also caution starting sentences with numbers. I think you're supposed to write out numbers and the beginning of sentences. You use a lot of passive voice which sometimes makes your ideas hard to follow. Consider implementing active voice. For example you sentence, "Because of the permanent source of water, there were multiple habitation sites as well as grave sites at Jebel Moya used by pastoralists in the area" is written in passive voice. To make it active voice you could say, " Because of the permanent source of water, pastoralists utilized multiple habitation and grave sites at Jebel Moya." Another example is you sentence, "During the second field season, a series of stone structures were found and recorded by Oric Bates." To make it active voice you could say, "During the second field season, Oric Bates found and recorded a series of stone structures." Many of your sentences could be shortened or cut into smaller sentences to help with the reader's comprehension. Perhaps remove the colon after Results at the bottom.