User:Jem315/Paleoethnobotany of the Mapuche/Krw77 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) Jem315
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Jem315/Paleoethnobotany of the Mapuche

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, broad but generalized
 * 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? Briefly mentions
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Some are, others date back to 1959
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? yes, missing captions for images and writing for "Central and Southern Chile"

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? I think that the lists of ethnobotanies should be further discussed. It just has a chart present without interpretation.
 * 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? Not really, majority are 5 + years 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? yes, concise and to the point. Very factual
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I have noticed
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is nicely outlined and organized

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? No, there are no captions but are linked to their original websites
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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? Yes - 15 sources
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There are 15 sources with many different focuses, but does allow for available literature.
 * 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? Yes, it is well organized with supporting information for understanding
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes

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 this is a brand new article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? it is very factual, informative, organized, and well written
 * How can the content added be improved? Filling in the gaps of missing information!

==== Overall evaluation: '''I think that by filling in the gaps missing such as image descriptions, "central and southern chile" and possibly an interpretation of the charts at the bottom would be helpful. Otherwise, your work seems very organized, well written and knowledgeable. Good job!''' ====