User:Eplogger/Mortuary archaeology/Mrman0930 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)
  • Eplogger
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • There is not draft found in their sandbox, nor is a specific Mortuary archaeology page created. This is the link to the current article: Mortuary archaeology
  • As a precursor: I couldn't find any drafts on their User Page and no edits on the official page have been done by Eplogger either

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes, no content was added to either
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • The intro sentence states " also known as bioarchaeology" however this links to a different practice. Clarification such as "a sub-section of bioarchaeology" or something similar may help.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The lead provides a proper and thorough description. While the body only talks about Methodology
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Yes, information such as environments this is used in is included in the lead but not the body.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is concise, providing various anecdotes of scenarios when this topic of study would be used. (I not sure if Wikipedia likes anecdotes in leads or not. It may be too detailed for the lead)

Lead evaluation

The lead is an overall good survey on what Mortuary archaeology is about and it's use cases.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, the methodology section is very thorough. However, in some of the methodology steps, there is a lot of detail with regards to who developed each method with many names being mentioned. This may be unnecessary detail that detracts from the focus of the article.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • The content appears to up-to-date with relevant sources and modern techniques used to study human remains.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • The entire body is only the methodology behind a remain, maybe additional topics/headings could be added.

Content evaluation

Overall, the content added to the article is very thorough with extensive considerations in the methodology section. However some of the 'lead in' sentences that cite scientists are over detailed and can be reduced in detail.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • The content is neutral in viewpoint.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • In general, the Creating a Biological Profile has more detail than the Burial Excavation heading, but that doesn't necessarily mean that one section is over or under represented.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No

Tone and balance evaluation

The tone is neutral and unbiased however the Creating a Biological Profile provides more detail than the Burial Excavation heading.

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, there are constant citations all throughout the article even.
• Are the sources current?
  • Some of the citations are from articles written over 30 years ago. This may make the citations have Processual Archaeological viewpoints that can skew viewpoints. However, this topic may not have shifted in methodology since then.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes

Sources and references evaluation

The article is very well cited however the publish dates of these citations may make them out of date. Additionally, many of the linked names within the article do not exist yet, making them not usefull. Aside from that, the sources and references look great.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Overall, the content is easy too read, however, some sections have either over detailed anecdotes to demonstrate a methodology step, or too many lead-ins citing researchers who coined certain methods.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • The methodology states two methods used however there are three sections. Topics of Study should be removed from Methodology. Additionally, the titles Burial Excavation and Creating a Biological Profile don't sound like two methodologies, rather two steps in one process. Clearer titles may help. Furthermore, a See Also section could be added. The final sentence of the Taphonomy and Pathology section provides 11 citations that are meant to be looked at for more detail if needed.

Organization evaluation

On occasion, some of the headings are not very clear. Also, many names are included in the article that are linked to non-existing articles. Additionally, many anecdotes are given throughout that article that I believe could receive their own section.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • No images are included
• Are images well-captioned?
  • N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • N/A

Images and media evaluation

Images of excavations and lab analysis examples could be added to enhance the article.

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?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

Overall, the citations and detail in the article are great. I believe the organization and fixing of over detailed wording needs the most work. Specifically, lead-ins for research papers are unnecessary and detract from the focus of the article.