This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) // I am reviewing "Amyxlam's" work.
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Amyxlam/Booker Site

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? // N/A
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? // I think that the introduction sentence does do a good job of introducing the site and its location, but I would recommend articulating that it's an "archaeological" site. This would indicate its importance to archaeology.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? // The Lead does introduce a lot of the different sections of the article, but I believe that it is too long and lengthy. It seems as though the Lead includes everything about the other sections, so some sentences should be taken out of the Lead and put into their own respective sections. I would just recommend shortening the Lead more and adding in additional sections that go into more detail about the different parts of the site excavation.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? // The article body only consists of an "Excavation" section aside from the Lead, so again I think you should shorten the Lead more and make more sections that cover the different things you talk about in your Lead. The way that it currently is however, the Lead and the rest of the article do match up in information.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? // The Lead is overly detailed, and should (again) be broken up and shortened to make room for other sections that can be included in the rest of the article's body.

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? // Most of the content added is relevant to the topic, but I believe that the descriptions of the surrounding sites at Booker within the Lead should be excluded so you can focus more on the Booker site itself. Talking about the surrounding sites is a good way to give more context to the Booker site, but they should not be the actual focus of the article. Aside from that, all the other information is relevant and appropriate to the article.
• Is the content added up-to-date? // The content added is up-to-date and helps indicate when exactly past excavations and other work on the Booker site took place.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? // Again, the only content that I believe does not belong is the initial descriptions of the sites around the Booker site in the Lead section. They are not the focus of the article, and should not be given much detail. The detail should be placed on describing the Booker site instead. Also, in the "Excavation" section, I believe that describing how archaeologists exactly divided up the units at the Booker site is something you can exclude. I believe that it is a minor detail that does not really need to be addressed.

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? // The tone of the content added is neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? // There are no heavily biased claims in the article.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? // There are no viewpoints that appear either overrepresented or underrepresented in the article.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? // No, the content is neutral and objective. It does not attempt to persuade or convince anything.

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? // There is a source/reference at the end of the article, so the content appears reliably backed up. However, there are little to no citations at all within the article. You should add citations throughout your entire article to ensure that readers know where your statements and information is coming from. I also suggest adding a retrieval date at the end of your article reference, so as to give more information on it.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? // The source is very thorough, though I suggest adding a retrieval date at the end of it.
• Are the sources current? // Yes, the sources are current.
• Check a few links. Do they work? // There does not appear to be clickable link within the reference at the end, so I suggest adding a URL link onto it since it is from a website. I like how you added clickable links to other references, such as locations, within the rest of the article though!

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? // There are very few grammar errors within the article, but overall it is fairly easy to understand and follow. The only thing I suggest is, again, editing the overall structure of your article. The Lead should not be lengthy, but short and to the point while giving a general overview of the rest of your sections. I recommend making more sections aside from "Excavation" to help break down your information more clearly and to make your article flow more.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? // There are few grammatical errors in some sentences, but no major spelling errors or anything else.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? // As I have mentioned before, the article's organization can be touched up a bit by adding additional sections and using that information in your Lead to fill those additional sections. The Lead should only reflect the major highlights of your article.

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? // There are no images in the article.
• 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

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? // The article is supported by a reference/source.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? // The reference list is accurate and complete.
• 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? // The article does follow the features and patterns of other articles well, it just needs to include more section headings to help break down the information.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? // The reference list, as I mentioned before, should include a clickable URL link to the source from which you got all the information from. Aside from that, the links to locations, etc. within the body are perfect!

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? // I believe that, overall, more information can be added within the body content of the article by adding in more sections and maybe even subsections to help organize and outline the total amount of information. The Lead sort of includes all of that, but it should be more concise and vaguely introduce what will be talked about in the body later on. By adding more sections and the like, your article will be more complete.
• What are the strengths of the content added? // Some strengths include the details about the site's location and surroundings, its context in regards to other nearby sites, the outline and information about the excavations that took place at the Booker site, and more. I really liked how you added in clickable links to some of the programs and locations that were relevant to the Booker site. This really helps other people understand where you got your information from and what those programs, locations, etc. are about!
• How can the content added be improved? // Again, it comes down to breaking up your article into more headings and sections that better relay the information. You did a great job on relaying the main points and findings about the Booker site, but most of that information is covered in detail within the Lead. The Lead should not really go into much detail about what you plant to talk about later on, it should only introduce those other topics. You should thus make more sections, in which you can go into more specific detail about the other findings, dates, and processes that took place for this site. This will really help make your article more organized and easy for readers to follow along!