User:Trh50/Feature (archaeology)/MikeJiang131 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.

Whose work are you reviewing?

User Trh50

Link to draft you're reviewing

Feature (archaeology)

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Feature (archaeology)

Lead-

A feature in archaeology, specifically excavation, is a collection of one or more contexts representing some human non-portable activity. Features are an indication that the area in which it was found has been interfered with in the past, usually by humans.

Concise. Does provides definition of article subject, explanation of technical terms. Could omit "... representing some human non-portable activity."

Content- Effective, up to date. Article is short- examples are provided, but neither context nor explanation are given for each example, and how they fit in to the article topic. Mostly contains links to other articles which cover the examples of features. Article could use some content covering the utilization of archaeological features, and brief descriptions of the examples contained within.

Tone and Balance- The article maintains a consistently impartial tone in its entirety. Due to the nature of the topic, there are not many arguments inherent in the writing. The article consists mostly of definitions.

Sources and References- The writer provides effective and plentiful sources to support their writing. Sources vary in how current they were, but the nature of the topic allows some room for older articles to remain relevant in this case. The content adequately reflects the materials presented within articles. Links work.

Organization- Article contains several grammatical errors. Writing throughout article's main body could be written in more concise fashion, and over-usage of punctuation combined with poor choice in diction within main body may detract from professional writing style. Several examples do not contain hyperlinks, and could use further explanation within the article. Example of some grammatical errors below. Tense and plural contradictions within the below section, missing definitions.

In relation to site stratigraphy, features generally have a vertical characteristic(S), such as pits, walls, or ditches. On the contrary, elements that have horizontal characteristic(S), such as a layer(S), dump(S), or surface(S), is (are) not a feature(S). General horizontal elements are part of the stratigraphic sequence (insert definition of stratigraphic sequence here).

Images and Media- The writer uses effective images in their article. They are properly captioned. Images are not properly cited.

New Article Review- Article uses effective sources, but could use more variation in sources (Article contains 5 citations, 4 sources). Article is much shorter than similar submissions covering the same topic: most significant criticism for this submission is its length. Should further specify on each example provided.

Overall Impressions- Submission contains concise skeleton of topic, extensive list of examples, and relevant images. However, several features of the article ought to be amended to increase its effectiveness.

1. Primarily, there needs to be more content surrounding the examples provided. In similar articles on Wikipedia, each example has its own subparagraph containing definitions and links to relevant articles pertaining to the subject.
2. Additionally, the main body of the article contains several grammatical errors (example provided above)- low hanging fruit, can be amended quickly and easily.
3. Further, the images contained in the article are not properly cited.
4. Finally, the submission could use many more citations if definitions are provided for each example. Would provide a more expedient experience for article viewers and contribute to the wholeness and reliability of the article.

Again, the work provided serves as a strong foundation to cover the topic archaeological features. With a few amendments, this would be a complete and effective submission.