User:Kennedybreak/Coffin/Kennedybreak 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) Mansi Patel
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Coffin

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 updated yet to reflect the new content added by my peer. The Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections because it just discusses what a coffin is but does not discuss its design, practice, etc. The Lead does not include information not present in the article. The Lead is concise but it could include more information touching all the major sections.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic. The content appears to be up-to-date meaning in the past 10 years but does not meet Wikipedia's preference of being 5 years or less old. Some content that does not belong is information about coffins that seems as though it is trying to be sold. The article does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps because it discusses coffins and their purposes in other places such as Ghana.

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
The content does not seem to be neutral because some information seems as though the person is trying to sell coffins, rather than just providing information on them. Some claims that seem heavily biased are those discussing the industry because it sounds like an advertisement rather than just presenting information. There does not seem to be any viewpoints that are over or under represented. The content regarding the industry is almost written in a persuasive manner.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources appear to be reliable secondary sources such as reviews, journals, etc. The sources seem to be thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic of coffins. The sources seem to be fairly current but do not meet Wikipedia's recommendations of being 5 or less years old. The sources seem to be written by a diverse spectrum of authors such as journals, articles, studies, etc. The few links that I checked worked.

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
The content that is present is well-written and fairly concise and easy to read. I did not notice any obvious grammatical or spelling errors present. The content is fairly well organized and seems to provide an equal amount of information for each section included.

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?

Images and media evaluation
The article includes images that enhance the understanding of coffins by showing different designs and rituals/practices. The images are fairly well captioned but some of them could be written better and explain how the picture relates to the topic. The images appear to adhere to Wikipedia's regulations. The images are laid out in a visually appealing way and are in sections that correspond to their relevance.

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
The overall quality of the article has improved. Some of the strengths include adding information to areas that lack and can be improved by revising content that sounds like an advertisement and could be seen as bias and/or persuasive to the reader under the section "Industry."