User:ACelesteL/Maya architecture/Joseph Rivero 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)  ACelesteL
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:ACelesteL/Maya architecture

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, there isn’t no leads to reflect the new content in the articles draft.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? This draft doesn’t have a lead.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? This draft doesn’t have a lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? This draft doesn’t have a lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? This draft doesn’t have a lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it only describes minor sections that has been added to the articles draft but it is relevant and helps the articles develop.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? No, one of the articles used as reference is from 1999 and the other one from 2012.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, the draft can improve by adding more sections relevant to the topic and a lead to describe them.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, this draft only talks about caves.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the content added only talks about caves.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, there aren't any.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content added is only providing information about caves.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The peer added two references but there isn't a link to open the article and verify the information that is on the provided article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, because there isn't a link so I can't read the sources and read the article.
 * Are the sources current? No, the first one is from 2012 and the second one is from 1999.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The first reference has six authors and the second one has two but I don't know if there is diverse spectrum of authors or if thee is historically marginalized individuals because there is no link.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No, there isn't a link provided in the references so I can't open them.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the information added at the end if the paragraph that already exists is well written and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The content added has no gramatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is too little to know if it's well organized or not.

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?

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? The peer only added a few sentences to a paragraph that already existed helping improve that specific section of the article and the article itself.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It adds more information about the history of the caves and their purpose in the Maya architecture.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content can be improved by adding more up to date information. The content can also be organized and more sections can be added to improve the article.