User:Eshafer45/The Women's Olamal: the Organisation of a Maasai Fertility Ceremony/Amw323 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

 * Eshafer45
 * User:Eshafer45/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?-Yes the lead has been updated by the user.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?-Yes the leas has a clear focus point of what the film is about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?-Not so much but it does explain what is important to both the men and women of the film.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?-No it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?-The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?-The content added is exactly relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?-Yes, the content added is up to date as of yesterday.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?-There is content missing in my opinion. The content is too brief. In a film about such a topic like fertility, I would like more content.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? -Yes it does.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? -The content added is very neutral,yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?- No, there are no biased positions.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? -There are a couple viewpoints that are underrepresented because of how brief the content is. I would have liked to hear more about the ceremony performed.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?-The content doesn't seem to persuade the reader of anything at all.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?-The content added is backed up by a secondary source of information, but again it is very brief and I am not sure how reliable it is or where the content was gathered from.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?-The source is not thorough.
 * Are the sources current?-Im not sure where the source is from or how thorough it is.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?- Im not sure.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?-There are no links.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? -The content is very brief, and has a couple spelling and grammar errors.
 * 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?-The content is organized by major points of the topic but very brief like I said.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?-No images are included.
 * Are images well-captioned?-NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?-NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?-NA

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?-No
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?-No sources seem to be noted.
 * 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?-NA
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?-NA

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?-The article is not complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?-The points are there, they just need to be adjusted, added to and completed.
 * How can the content added be improved?-More content needs to be added, along with images and secondary sources.