User:Jmbre21/Maya architecture/Sbridge4 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? Jmbre21
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jmbre21/Maya architecture and Maya architecture

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * 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? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant. She reworked a lot of the article's original structure to make it more concise and easy to read.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think she added relevant content and sources. She didn't remove any content that should have been on the page, so I say that all of the content that was reasonable to add there was added.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes. The material is neutral and informative.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, everything appears balanced and neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, see above.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content informs the reader of Maya Architecture and how it was accomplished. There are only observations and facts.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all of the sources used were reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources have a good balance of information that applies to what was added to the article. All of which was relevant to the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the sources used are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links in the sources work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. Some of the content added was actually to make the original works more concise, so I'd say bonus points there.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors in the content added. There are a couple of spelling errors in the sandbox, but in the actual article, they are fixed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the organization of the page is well thought out and breaks down the major points of the topic.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? They did not add images or medial. It seems as if the images already on the page are strong enough and work well.
 * 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? The article seems more complete. I appreciate that grammatical errors were fixed and that some new, relevant content was added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The section of the Maya measuring system is really strong and explains the logic behind the architecture.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think a closeup picture/graphic showing how the measurements were made would have been a helpful touch. Overall, the additions to the article were well thought and executed successfully.