User:Amh285/Maya death rituals/Fejenn 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? Amh285
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Maya death rituals

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I don't believe that the lead has been updated
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I believe that the lead can be more clear. the lead talks about the Maya death rituals but not exactly what they are.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is a table of contents that discusses what the article will talk about
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Most of what is talked about in the article is not in the lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise but could be more clear

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? No, any added content to this article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? There has been no content added during this school year but there has been content added in 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do think there can have content adding about the rituals alone. for example, what are the rituals
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I don't believe so

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I don't see any bias within the article
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I feel like the actual rituals are underrepresented
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I don't read a persuasion in the article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There is no new sources added. The article seems to be cited from mainly encyclopedias. I do think there can be more secondary sources added.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? there are no new sources added-- and I didn't find any new sources in a sandbox.
 * Are the sources current? most sources are from around 1995. I think some sources can be updated for better information
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No new sources added.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content are well written but no new content has been added
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a few grammatical and spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? there is no content added but I do think the article is well organized so it should be easy to add in some content.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? YES
 * Are images well-captioned? YES
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Could use a citation
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? YES

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? It is hard to give an overall evaluation because there doesn't seem anything was added to the article. there has been one edit but not much added. I do think there is a lot if potential to make this article great.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? There is plenty of room for content to be added
 * How can the content added be improved? The lead can be more straight forward and like I said before I think starting with just adding more about what the rituals actually are is a great start