User:JoselynYanez/Philippine Symbolisms in Archaeology/Talizarnegar 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?  Jg0120, JoselynYanez, Taytumnbush
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Philippine symbolism in archaeology

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the Lead has been updated with new content by my peer
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The first sentence defines symbolism. The next two sentences clearly describe the article's topic in its relation to the Philippines.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it briefly highlights the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, it does not include information 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, all of the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * According to the sources used, which are mostly older articles, the content might not be up to date. There is only one article from 2017.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, there is no content that is missing or does not belong.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content is neutral and objective.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No there are no claims that support a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think all of the viewpoints and sections were represented fairly equally.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content does not persuade the reader to favor a certain position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Not every sentence has a source cited next to it, but some content is cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, all the sources reflect the topic or topics surrounding Philippine symbolism.
 * Are the sources current?
 * A lot of the sources are a little old. There are a few from the 2000s and one from 2017.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I checked all the links and they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content was well-organized and also written in a way that was understandable. It flowed really well.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, there are no grammar or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the content is very well-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, there are images throughout the right side of the article of burial jars, drawings, and other examples of symbolism.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the pictures are well-captioned and connect with the content presented near it.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, they all align at the right side of the page.

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, I noticed some articles that were not exactly about the topic but provide background information on the topic. For example, there was a source by Solheim discussing the Nusantao and a source by Barretto-Tesoro discussing the Datu and Catalonan.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * There are thirteen sources, most of which discuss symbolism in the Philippines so I do believe it is a comprehensive list.
 * 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, the article follows the pattern of similar articles. It has sections, subheadings, media, contents, references, and more.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * The article has categories such as "collections of the national museum of the Philippines," "national cultural treasures of the Philippines," "Philippine pottery," and more that provide articles on similar topics.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The content of the article is very comprehensive and complete. It touched on many different types of symbolism in the Philippines.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths are that it was well-organized and neutral, as well as comprehensive in that it touched on so many types of symbolism such as jar burials, tattooing, agriculture, and more.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content can be improved by including more photos of the examples of symbolism they discussed.