User:E.k.robinson/Chinchorro mummies/Viip42 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) E.k.robinson
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Chinchorro mummies

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No
 * 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? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Extra unnecessary information

Lead evaluation
I think the information does not flow that well and includes information that is not in the article. Also, there is information that is in the article that is not mentioned in the lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? yes
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no

Content evaluation
There is information in the lead that is not in the body, and there is information in the body that is not in the lead

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? no added content
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Tone and balance evaluation
The article seems overall neutral to me.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? no new content
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? not really - early 2000s
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
The "preparation of mummies" section has no references....

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? nothing has been added
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? nothing has been added
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? nothing has been added

Organization evaluation
i think the article is organized well overall

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


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

Images and media evaluation
I feel like a few more images would enhance the article - maybe add pictures of different mummy techniques

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? nothing has been added
 * What are the strengths of the content added? nothing has been added
 * How can the content added be improved? nothing has been added

Overall evaluation
I think the information in the lead needs to be changed to reflect the rest of the supporting supporting information. Overall, article seems neutral in tone. Add references to sections that are lacking references. Also addition of supplemental images would be useful.