User:Grang001/Sinanthropus/Jargu006 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? Grang001
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Grang001/sandbox

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?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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? the lead is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes content is relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? When looking at the articles references I noticed that the dates were are older there were not any dates that were recent
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Content seems fine there doesn't seem to be any missing content

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Content added seems to be neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I did not come across any claims that seemed to be heavily biased
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The last sentence whether the sinanthropus was even considered to be a genus I feel like there shoud be a little more added to that. That is an interesting sentence.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No article seems to be pretty neutral

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? No
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links in the references work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is indeed easy to follow as it is organized
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not stumble across any huge grammatical or spelling errors
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes article is broken down into sections

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?

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? Yes I believe the article is indeed way more complete
 * What are the strengths of the content added? There are a lot of additional details that were not in the original article
 * How can the content added be improved? add a couple of images