User:Alanis C. Santos Alvira/Gastronomy/Angela.sanchez207 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) Alanis C. Santos Alvira
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Gastronomy

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead has not been updated by my peer, but the lead has an introductory sentence that helps the reader know the articles topic. The lead talks about many sections that could be added but there is only one section. My advice would be to that sections that are mentioned in the lead. The lead has good information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic but it only has information about the Gastronomy's history there is some information missing about other topics mentioned in the lead.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content seems neutral, there is some topics that are underrepresented there could be some more information about the gastronomy around the world. The content doesn't seem to be persuasive, it has a very informative tone.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources in the article have some information but when choosing links I recommend searching for links that send you directly to the information. I found some articles and books which I thought was a good approach as we should have different kinds of sources. All of the authors are different, but the article needs more citations and I saw an unreliable source.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The history section is a little bit overwhelming to the eye, it has really good information but my advice would be just organizing that section a little bit. I also suggest adding more sections to the article. I saw that my peer was a adding a puertorrican gastronomy section which I thought it was a good idea. Maybe my peer could add a Caribbean, European, Gastronomy etc. section.

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
The article has images and they are well captioned. I found the pictures to be very appealing. Maybe add some more while adding the new sections. But overall the pictures that the article already has are pretty good.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The article is a really good topic, the article has good images and a strong lead.I am impressed by my peer to have chosen such an important topic. The content that can be added is a new section, some citations that are missing. I believe she will do a great job!