User:Trachelophorus/Gebel Ramlah/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) Trachelophorus
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Gebel Ramlah

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? Yes
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, but is the the table of contents good enough for this?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, but it is okay because it is overall information and does not mention a topic that is not further discussed.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, possibly add more about what will be in the article if that is actually needed.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes!
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes!
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I would love to see more content added about the excavation technique or artifacts that were found within the graves. There is a lot of emphasis on the bodies, but I wonder if there were also items placed in the graves.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes!
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Nope
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Maybe you could find second viewpoints for some of the hypotheses you presented.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? nope

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? a couple are a little old, but you cannot just disregard literature on the topic.
• 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? Yes! I put a few sentence structure mistakes you made at the bottom of this.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? See above answer.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes! I would love to see even more sections though.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images (only a map). I know how hard it is to find images though.
• Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?Yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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?
• The article is definitely on its way to completeness!
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• The content seems to be accurate as far as I can tell. There is a good basis of information. The sentence structure and grammar is overall good. I like the overall structure and beginnings of content. I like how you state something that was found and then show what the possible interpretation could be.
• How can the content added be improved?
• In the first line under the Environment section, I am not sure if "western desert" should be capitalized. This sentence, "he presence of all flakes and tools produced in the knapping of a singular core suggest that they were made not to be used but for training or practice." should be made more clear. It confused me. I also think you could expand on some points a little bit more. For example, you could split up the section about early, middle, and late Neolithic and talk about each of them individually. The sentence, "Archaeologists at Gebel Ramlah refer to the its Final Neolithic inhabitants as part of the Bunat El Asnan culture, individuals especially well known for their megalith constructions throughout the period" needs to be edited. Possibly change north African to northern Africa. There are a couple times where you put the citation in the middle of the sentence instead of at the end of the sentence. For example, you sentence, "There are cultural elements found in the Final Neolithic of Gebel Ramlah which overlap with or are potential precursors for Ancient Egyptian elements, such as astronomical knowledge and the production of amulets" has the citation in the middle.