User:Heo16/Aconcagua mummy/JWi1son 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)                Heo16
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:                                               User:Heo16/Aconcagua mummy

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? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?  No content added at the moment.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?  The original article itself was last edited in June of 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?    I did not see any content that did not belong, but the content on the original article could use more information.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?                                                                                                  This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * 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? The content that is in the article has been cited through reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? The oldest source used is from 2007 the majority of the sources are from 2015-2018.
 * 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

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No errors that I caught.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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


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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? No content has been added to the draft as of this moment.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? There is currently no added content. However, this means that the article has a lot of potential.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think the original article offers a lot of room for adding detail and or multiple sections. This is something that Heo16 could focus their additions/edit on.

Overall evaluation
I think that the article is a great article to improve upon and there are many different approaches you can take to do that. If I were to make changes to the article I would start by researching what I can add to what is already there. Based on what you add to the information that is already there, you might be able to create a whole new section to go. Then as I completed those sections I would add more detail to the first paragraph were the topic is introduced so that the article is cohesive. Something that I think you could look into for this article is the significance of the Aconcagua mummy. As of the moment I only see factual, quantitative data, more historical text would make the article more engaging. Or, I think an easy way to add more sustenance to the article would be to add images of the mummy or things that are related. As of the moment there are no images but I think that this would be a great way to make the article look more visually appealing. Overall, I think that you have picked and amazing article to improve on and hope that your project goes well.