User:Cgarc070/Australopithecus garhi/Radroni21 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)
 * Cgarc070
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Cgarc070/sandbox
 * editing article: Australopithecus garhi

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
I do not think the provided content was meant to be added to the Lead section of the current article.

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
''I think all content provided is relevant to the topic, but I am unsure if it is up to date because I am not sure where you are citing your information from for the first half of the paragraph. I think it would be a good idea to consider citing the sources you retrieved that information from to ensure that the content is up-to-date and reliable. I think you provided a lot of pertinent information that describes Au. garhi, but I can't say for sure if any content is missing or out of place because I am not really sure where you intend to implement this particular paragraph within the article as it currently stands.''

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
''Great work! The content you have added is neutral and does not appear biased in any direction. The only possible way you could improve the balance of your paragraph is to clarify the debate about if Au. garhi should be considered to be of the Homo genus instead. In reading the last portion of your paragraph, I had a hard time understanding if there is a specific outcome of the debate or if the debate is still ongoing.''

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
''As I mentioned in the content evaluation portion, I think it would be a good idea to include more citations in the first half of your work to ensure that the information came from current and reliable secondary sources. That being said, the sources you provide for the second half of the paragraph each appear to be thorough, current, and applicable to the content you describe, so great job including each of those! And bonus points for all three of your links working properly, I was able to access each source easily on my end as a viewer!''

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
''I think all of the content you provided about Au. garhi is relevant and essential to understanding the species as a whole including the current research and identifying physical features. However, I do think adding some organization to your paragraph would help make the content you provide easier to understand, as well as easier to incorporate into the current Au. garhi article. A couple of ways I think you could do this is by separating your paragraph into sections labelled with an identifying header and/or subheader. Specifically, I think you could include a subheader "Tool Use " underneath the current article's header titled "Culture", and subsections in the "Anatomy" section that separates post cranial features like their femur from dental features like their jaw and molars. I think that breaking the sections into parts (in the ways I mentioned and/or whatever ways you can also identify) will help clarify the various sections of the article and make it more accessible to the viewer.''

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
''I believe the content you added in your sandbox will make the Au. garhi article more complete, and that you did an excellent job expanding on the information the article currently has! The major strength of the content is how it touches on so many important elements of Au. garhi, from its anatomy, to its tool use, to its involvement in current debates. The overall ways I think your content can be improved is simply including more source citations and breaking up the paragraph into smaller sections to increase the level of organization. Keep up the good work!''