User:Dbece005/Red Deer Cave People/Alexmkid3 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) Dbece005
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Dbece005/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead needs some revisions.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No, the lead should introduce what the topic will be about. The author delves into the information, without first establishing an introduction with the lead.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the author needs to include a brief statement on the article's major topics.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the author does not present information already present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead needs to concisely summarize what the topic will be about.

==== Lead evaluation- The author needs to include an introductory statement to lead into the topic. I recommend reading the paragraph you wrote and write an introductory sentence that summarizes that topic. ====

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added to the draft is relevant to the topic as it provides additional information.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content added is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, the content stays on the topic of hand.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content added is neutral as it does not appear to take any sides.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the information described in the draft is informative and does not attempt to persuade the audience.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the draft contains a neutral standpoint and thus does not have viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content that was added by the author does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The content is backed up by three sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources appear to come from fairly reliable sources. However, I would recommend searching some academic journals to further strengthen the reliability of the content.
 * Are the sources current? All the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links provided work.

==== Sources and references evaluation- You have fairly good sources that back up your content. However, your sources appear to be cited incorrectly. You have to manually press the cite button so that the number after a sentence directs you back to the source. I recommend looking at a video on how to properly cite sources on Wikipedia. ====

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The writing is clear, however, it has some errors that make it more difficult to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a good amount of grammatical errors. I recommend re-reading aloud to make sure that your sentences make sense and it does not sound awkward.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the content is separated into different sections.

==== Organization evaluation- The organization of the draft is fairly good. However, I would recommend re-reading your draft as there are a few grammatical errors and fixing those would enhance the clarity of the article. ====

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


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

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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

==== New Article Evaluation- This is not a new article so this section does not apply. Note that when you click article on the dashboard it appears as if there is no article on Red Deer Cave People, however, a search using Wikipedia shows that this article already exists. ====

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content added would help improve the quality of the paper as it substantiates what was already written and is quite detailed.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the content added is that it is clear and it added additional information not found in the original article. Most of the content is insightful as well.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content added could be improved in several ways. First, there are several grammatical errors and re-reading the draft aloud should allow you to fix most of them. Also there needs to be an introductory sentences when introducing a new topic on your particular article. Some sentences sound awkward, so I would recommend re-writing those that do not sound right. Also the sources are not cited correctly, so I would refer back to past modules where that was covered.

==== Overall evaluation- This was a good start! I enjoyed reading your draft as it adds insightful information about the Red Deer Cave People. However, check for grammar issues and make sure to cite your sources correctly. ==== Thank you for your advice I agree I need to check my grammar and cite my sources correctly