User:Qihan Peng/Blueberry Site/Michelleucsb 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) Qihan Peng
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Qihan Peng/Blueberry Site

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? Yes
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise. A couple more sentence could be added to the lead so that the reader knows the significance of the site.

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? No

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

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No sources yet
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No sources yet
• Are the sources current? No sources yet
• Check a few links. Do they work? No links

Sources and references evaluation

Make sure to include your source for your article!

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? The content is currently in paragraph form but it would be a lot clearer and more organized in sections! Based on the content you have, you could break it apart into different sections such as "Artifacts Found" or "Cultural Significance" to make it easier to navigate the article.

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?

Images and media evaluation

No images or media

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? No sources yet
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? No sources yet
• 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? Not yet, I recommend adding section headings.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No

Overall impressions

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 goes deep into the culture of the people who inhabited the site and provides good connections between artifacts and analysis.
• How can the content added be improved? The article could include more about why this site is significant today