User:Eirbouh/Khirbat Faynan/Mkan18 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)
  • Eirbouh
  • https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/Eirbouh
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • Khirbat Faynan

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?
  • The introduction does a good job of showing readers the location of Khirbat Faynan and how its history, state at different time periods, and archaeology will be approached.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Yes, it does.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is quite concise and focuses on the site's archaeological and geographic details.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • There are sources/citations that are pretty reasonably up to date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • There definitely needs to be more information/content, but this is a good start since important information about the site in the Bronze and Iron Age, Nabatean, Roman, and Byzantine periods have been included.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No, not at all; it is very neutral and does not have a position/opinion on the ideas presented.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Most content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of info.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • The journal articles are thorough, but the Daily Beast article is not thorough.
• Are the sources current?
  • They are as current as 2005, 2012, and 2018, so yes, they are reasonably current.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • One of the links to Lauren Ward's article "Excavations at the Site of an Ancient Techno-Revolution" does not work, but otherwise the others work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes
• 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?
  • I think the content is moderately well organized, but History and Archaeology could be split up. The author could put the History section first to establish the site's significance, then explain archaeological finds.

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.
• 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 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?
  • Yes, it's supported by 5 sources, but one of the sources is from The Daily Beast which may not be a good source.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
  • The list of sources is a good start, but it is not exhaustive and may need to be added on to. All available literature on the subject is not represented.
• 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?
  • Yes
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
  • Yes, it does

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, this is a really good start to your article. You could shorten/condense the lead/introduction, and you could add a little more content in the history and archaeology sections, but I thought that the layout of the article made sense, wasn't too over focused in any specific areas, and will come together nicely!