User:Ecorona1998/Franco-Cantabrian/Skoud001 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? Ecorona1998
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ecorona1998/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Some what
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, maybe needs some more detail in the examples of what was found.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? For the most part
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I would appreciate more specific examples with links to other wiki pages

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Most areas are neutral, maybe avoid words like interesting or significant unless have a citation right above that wording.
 * 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

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? Most of them are, one is a little old
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Has parts that weren't so clear/clean
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No, I think you should divide up the introduction with a sub-sub-header in the original article's archeology with an in hominin part.

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?

Images and media evaluation
No images.

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?

New Article Evaluation
Not a new article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes the in hominin part is very specific ad nicely done.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The specifics of the findings were very nice! The introduction was good as well.
 * How can the content added be improved? I would like it to be more divided and review parts that seem to be more so personalized and not very neutral such as using words like "interesting" or "significant" many times.

Overall evaluation
I feel that your draft is very nice! There are some errors here and there that take away from the strength of the article that I have mentioned in different areas. I think divide up the work and add in some wiki links here and there. I would also like to see specific archeological finds! But really like it so far, it made me understand the topic much better than before! :)