User:Carissmav/Paranthropus aethiopicus/Dhern041 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? Carissamav
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Carissamav/sandbox

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
'' REVIEW: In review, the Lead has been updated to include more background information on the name that was missing from the original article. However, it could be expanded a little bit more to include more detail. There was no major change to the Lead. The Lead includes a clear and concise introductory sentence that accurately describes the topic of the article. However, the Lead of the article should include a brief description of the article's major sections. Overall, the Lead is a good start, and is only missing a brief description of the article's content.''

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?

Content evaluation
'' REVIEW:  The content of the article is relevant to the topic. Size, habitat, and diet all provide key information for the hominin. The expansion of the "Classification Debates" section includes more information that was missing from the original article. The "Classification Debates" section also includes multiple up-to-date viewpoints from research findings. However, the content should be expanded on. Some sections only have one or two sentences. More should be added to give the reader more information from multiple sources.''

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
'' REVIEW:  The overall content remains neutral and gives the reader multiple viewpoints. There were no phrases that suggest that the article is biased in any way. No position is overrepresented or underrepresented. One can see multiple sides presented in the "Classification Debates" section. The author did a good job at not attempting to persuade the reader.''

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
'' REVIEW:  It appears that every piece of new content is backed up from a reliable source. The sources are very thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic. All of the sources are current and vetted articles. The only thing I noticed is that some sources are listed multiple times. I can confirm that multiple link are working.''

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
'' REVIEW:  The content is mostly all clear and concise; however, there are some phrases that could be worded differently. Some phrases should also be changed to ensure that they do not seem to be persuading. There are not any noted grammatical or spelling errors. Overall, the content is well-organized, and each section reflects the overall topic.''

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

Overall evaluation
'' REVIEW:  The content that was added has definitely improved the original article as a whole. There was key information missing from the original article, and the author did a good job at filling in that information. One of the strengths of the article is that the author provided neutral information. The content can be improved by adding more information to each section. There are many sections that would flourish with the addition of more details.''