User:CantrellL/Nim Li Punit/CassieSmith5 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

CantrellL

Link to draft you're reviewing: I looked at the original Nim Li Punit article, because there wasn't anything in the sandbox. Let me know if there is any writing I should look at in addition to the original article.

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The lead is very repetitive. There is also a lot of unnecessary information, like the coordinates. I think you could consolidate it into one paragraph and still have room to add a couple sentences of information. In particular, the lead could benefit from having more information that better reflects the contents of the article, like architecture, population estimates and excavations.

Also the first "paragraph" of the lead is only two sentences. Yuck. I think you could condense this and make it more clear.

Overall Impressions

This article could use a lot of attention. There are plenty of grammar mistakes, the writing is sloppy and the layout is not very interesting. There are also a lot of opportunities to add citations, particularly in the architecture, population and excavation sections.

Possible Directions to go in

There is a sentence in the ecology section that says "most of the surrounding broadleaf tropical rainforest is secondary growth, due to the disturbance of the Maya themselves." I think this topic of the Maya's impact on the land surface around them would be super interesting!The architecture section is missing a couple citations about the ballcourt and the orientation of the Plaza. I also think it would be cool to add an image of the ballcourt.

You could possibly add a section on the writing system at Nim Li Punit, as writing is mentioned in the excavation and population section.

The population and excavation sections could also use a couple references.

I don't know if there is any literature on these topics, but other possible sections that would benefit the overall article are: trade, oral tradition about the region, collapse, cultural significance to modern Indigenous Peoples and the nation of Belize, etc.