User:Ugottabekittenme/Applied Anthropology Research Methods/Christina Silva1 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? Ugottabekittenme
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ugottabekittenme/Applied Anthropology Research Methods

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? This appears to be a new page
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does, toward the end of the paragraph
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does not, but there is a table of contents that achieves the same purpose, so it would seem cumbersome and superfluous to do so.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything mentioned in the lead is in the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise but contains a good amount of relevant information.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Again, this appears to be a new article, and the content is relevant to the topic and the field.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the content is up to date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All of the content relates to the topic so nothing seems to be missing or extraneous.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I was unable to find a Wikipedia page that dealt with research methods used in applied anthropology and so it would seem that this article does address an issue that has been underrepresented.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There is no bias evident in the writing.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Each research method, and the discussion about anthropology in general, seems to be well-balanced.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? There is no evidence for an attempt to persuade the reader toward a certain view.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Sources are definitely offered for the content throughout the article. However, in this instance, "Prior anthropologists were likely artifact hunters and had no regard for the cultures that they were encountering. " a source would seem useful as this feels more like conjecture than fact.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They appear to, and to be from a variety of sources. It is difficult to say with certainty if they are exhaustive, but that is not really the point either.
• Are the sources current? Yes. The oldest reference seems to be from 2010.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There are a spectrum of sources. I am not quite sure what we mean by "historically marginalized individuals."
• Check a few links. Do they work? I clicked all of the links and they worked properly.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is well-written and organized.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are two run-on sentences: "...prevalent after WWII, this was due to the loss of ..." and "...applied anthropology, he is often referred to as..." in the Background section. "...accumilate..." is in the same section. ..."boas' ..."--capitalization.
• 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 There are no images or media added.

• 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 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, I would think so, as it takes a look at an associated, relevant ,but not yet covered topic in Wiki.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Again, I doubt it's exhaustive, but I doubt that is needed.
• 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, there are several links to other Wiki sites.

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? This article gives a nice overview of the different research methods used in anthropology.
• How can the content added be improved? I would like to see specific concepts or examples of where and how these methods have been used to flesh out the information a bit more.

Overall evaluation

Overall, this is a very well-done article with a lot of good, relevant information that is not found elsewhere on Wiki. There are some issues to clean up, as stated earlier, but those should be easy to change. I think if there is a bit more detail added, it could easily work as a stand-alone article.