User:Danielaa161/Emergence of Agriculture in the Philippines/JoselynYanez 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)
 * Danielaa161, Talizarnegar
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Emergence of agriculture in the Philippines

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the lead provides why rice is still important in today's society
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead only mentions that the exact date is unknown but does not suggest an estimated era of focus.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, they actually lack content in reference to the following sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise but also too short.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is relevant to Agriculture and the importance of how it began.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, there is inclusion of modern day communities and recent scientific methods used to analyze data, such as, population genetics.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All of the content that is present should be there, but there should be an earlier connection between the Austronesian world and agriculture rather than going off on the former and much later talking about the latter.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There is a good balance of support and disagreement of various theories.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, I checked references 1-6

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No grammatical error other than awkward double spacing.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, it is very well organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Images 2 and 3 do help in understanding the topic but image 1 is way too small.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * They are well captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Not the last one, it is not easy to notice.

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?
 * Yes, there are 2-3 sources independent of the subjet.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * There are 11 sources, cited multiple times.
 * 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?
 * Yes the pattern is similar.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * It does link to other articles. The links are scattered throughout the text.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * This article still needs to be updated.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The lead needs some improvement and only minor edits to the media sources should be made.