User:Danielaa161/Emergence of Agriculture in the Philippines/Meleniematian 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)https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/Danielaa161 https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/Joshroizman https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/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 has been updated to reflect the new content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes this article provides a clear and concise sentence that describes the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes it does. It clearly shows a brief description.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead has information that is present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? All the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes it is.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, I do not believe there is content missing or content that does not belong.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes it is.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there is not.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, I believe the viewpoints are not overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content does not pull the reader in any direction. It just provides information that has already been said.

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! all of the article's sources are thorough and reflect the literature of the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Some of them are.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes everything is well written and clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? From what I have noticed there are not any errors except I think the "a" in the title of the article should be capitalized.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes the article is broken down into sections and is organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes definitely.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes they are.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes but I feel the images should be enlarged a little bit.

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.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? yes.
 * 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 it does.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes there are other articles about the same topic.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes it is complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is very strong which I like.
 * How can the content added be improved? Overall I think this is a great article and the content is great.