User:Fejenn/Bioarchaeology/Payton.dawson 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? Fejenn
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Bioarchaeology

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I do not believe the lead has been updated to reflect the new content added.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the articles's topic, bioarchaeology.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead only includes a brief description of some fo the article's major sections. The following sections were not mentioned in the lead: 1.) non-specific stress indicators, mechanical stress indicators, and stable isotope analysis. These seemed to be the most in depth sections of the article that were not mentioned in the lead.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead does not contain information that is not present in the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise providing us an explanation of bioarchaeology in addition to the term used by other countries. Subsequently, the lead also notes the emergence of this term and topic as well as what researchers can learn from this field of study.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.
• 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? While I would not say that content is missing, I do think that some content can be expanded upon such as the section titles "archaeological use of DNA."
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article does cover the ethics of bioarchaeology noting the concerns of respect for the dead. However, this article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. To my knowledge, the article does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content that is added to the article is neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there were not any claims that appear to be heavily biased towards a particular position. Overall, the article seemed very objective as it analyzed the topic of bioarchaeology including paleodemography, non-specific and mechanical stress indicators, diet and dental health, stable isotope analysis, archaeological uses of DNA, and bioarchaeological treatment of equality and inequality. More specifically, I think the section of the article regarding archaeological ethics was presented in a neutral and non biased manner as it analyzed the concerns for respect and treatment of the dead.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? One viewpoint that I think was underrepresented was the section on archaeological use of DNA. There is only one sentence in this section.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position away from another. Overall, the article is objective and neutral.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the content of the article is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information. The article included 90 cited secondary sources, many external links, articles for further reading, and other similar articles that are on the Wikipedia site.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? After reading the article and looking at the citations in correspondence with the links, I do believe that the sources are thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic. Overall, there was a wide variety of sources that were used within the article, which shows that the information in the article is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information.
• Are the sources current? There was a variety of sources that were published within the years 1969-2020. There were a handful of current sources that were published this year in 2020.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? In going through some of the links, it seems as though they contain a diverse spectrum of authors. Yes, they do include a few historically marginalized individuals where possible.
• Check a few links. Do they work? All of the links that I checked, did in fact work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the article is clear, concise, and easy to read.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There were a couple of grammatical errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content of the article is well organized. The breakdown of the content into section is well structured making it clear and easy for the reader to follow along.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, the article does not include images that enhance understanding of the topic.
• Are images well-captioned? There are no images.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? There are no images.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There are no images.

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? After reading the article, I do believe it is on track to becoming more complete. There are a few suggestions that would strengthen this article, which will be listed under the third bullet point of this section.
• What are the strengths of the content added? I think this article did a good job of introducing the topic of bioarchaeology in the lead, detailing the non-specific and mechanical stress indicators, and analyzing the ethical concerns of archaeology.
• How can the content added be improved? A few suggestions that I have from improving the quality of this article and making it more complete would be to add images. Specifically, I think it would be a good idea to add images to the stress indicators section. This seems to be one of the few sections that you may be able to find images of tangible things to represent and reflect the content of the article. Additionally, the article could be improved by adding more content under the "archaeological use of DNA" section and the "hair" section.