User:Jacobshanks10/Strategic pluralism/Cami.fisher 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) Jacobshanks10
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jacobshanks10/Strategic pluralism

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead has not been changed, rather, Jacob's changes and additions have been to what seems like the 'history' of the theory. Perhaps this should be labelled. The existing lead however seems sufficient.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content added is important and relevant. It is up to date. One topic I would expand upon are criticisms or theories opposing the Strategic Pluralism theory. Additionally, I would like to see the opinions of other biological anthropologists on this theory, and work that built on this theory. In other words, what implications did it have? Does it have cultural implications today?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Seeing as this is a theory, there should be caution in treating the reasoning as if it is true. Rather than saying 'women prefer more physically fit men', you could say 'The theory posits that women prefer more physically fit men', and follow with the reasoning or evidence behind that claim. Otherwise, there is no strong claim or bias in this article. Underrepresented are any viewpoints which critique or oppose this theory: links to articles of these theories should be provided. With assertive language, this content seems to posit that the theory is in fact true: arguments should be presented which favour the theory, but it remains a theory and should be described as such.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Sources are good, however more sources should be incorporated as there are only 2 at the moment (two are the same source). Sources should be more thorough and cover the subject more broadly, as I indicated above. Sources are somewhat current: it would be interesting to try and find more recent takes on this theory however. The links to sources work!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Content is well written and easy to read. I did not notice spelling or grammatical errors. The content however is not labelled or organized into sections: this might be helpful.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Jacob has made the content that already existed more legible and appropriate. This has definitely improved the article, as the original content had casual language. The content added can be improved by adding more! Also, providing additional sources and opposing viewpoints or critiques that highlight that this is a theory among others, and not objective truth. Great job Jacob!