User:Djr102/Jason De León/Jem315 Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? Djr102
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Djr102/Jason De León
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise
Lead evaluation
[edit]So there is not a lead, per se in this article because the article is about a person.
The lead then becomes an introduction the persons life and career, but there is no lead in the conventional sense that gives you an idea of where the article will go from the beginning. There is a small text book at the top of the page, but I think an introductory paragraph for the current context of the person would be appropriate before getting into the article.
Content
[edit]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? Yes
Content evaluation
[edit]There could be a better description of the actual archaeological processes involved in the project that is cited on the page. Right now, it is only gives a more general portion of the story, but I think it is a great project and I'd like to learn more about it.
Tone and Balance
[edit]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? Yes
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]So the tone is neutral, but I would say that there is a lot of background information, but not as much information about the actual archaeology of the influence that his life experiences have had on his practice as an archaeologist.
Sources and References
[edit]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? Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work? Not all of them.
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Most of the links for the sources work except the link to his CV. I would also try adding some peer-reviewed articles in your citations and body as well as more primary sources.
Organization
[edit]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? Yes
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes
Organization evaluation
[edit]There are a few punctuation errors around your quotes that you have used in the body of the text. Your page is really well organized and it is very clear the topics that you are discussing in each section.
Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
- 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
[edit]N/A
For New Articles Only
[edit]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
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? No
- 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? No
New Article Evaluation
[edit]Try adding links in the article to give your work a little bit more context in the wikipedia community.
Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
- What are the strengths of the content added? The article is concise and uses neutral language to provide information about an archaeologist and his projects.
- How can the content added be improved? I would perhaps add more details about the project from primary sources.
Overall evaluation
[edit]Thank you for sharing the story of Jason De León and his career. I am glad that someone is working on this very interesting and incredibly important topic. I have heard about this project before, but some time ago. I had not followed up. I think it would be great if you could add a section on news updates and releases so that people could read and add to the story to keep it current.