User:Natalexandria/Catoma Creek Site/Frankierobles2 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)
  • Natalexandria Catoma Creek Site

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?
  • Yes the topic is clearly stated
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The lead does not state the different structures.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Yes, the main information/idea is taken though.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is conscise. Rather than being detailed it breaks it up into subcategories based on the structure and excavation.

Content

Guiding questions:

• The content of the article is updated and provides dates from what was excavated in 1990 and 2014.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • The article states importance of kings and buildings but then says there is no sufficient evidence to prove it
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • The article is netural.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented
  • Neutral
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No the article serves the purpose to informat and states facts.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• There is no link or bibliography from sources.

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?
  • There are no images, but the article states that it will upload. Be careful not to expose the exact location of the site.

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?
  • No sources are given.

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?
  • It is direct in the facts and gives dates of excavation,
• How can the content added be improved?
  • Provide sources and explain the importance of kings to maya buildings