User:Lenisa Castaneda/Olduvai Hominid 9/Alexmkid3 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) Lenisa Castaneda
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lenisa Castaneda/sandbox

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? I recommend using a sentence that summarizes what the section will talk about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There needs to be more sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the lead adds additional information not found in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise, but it could be separated into different sections.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The added content is relevant to topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content is up to date based on the sources.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Some of the content in the draft is in the second person and it sounds more professional to use solely the third person.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is typically neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The claims do not suggest that it is heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No viewpoint is overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not attempt to persuade the audience.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the article uses academic resources that come from journals and are great pieces of evidence.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they clearly reflect academic research in that topic.
 * Are the sources current? Most of the resources are fairly current, for example, a few years old.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is a clear and well-written draft.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes there are some grammatical errors. I would suggest looking at your draft and seeing where it sounds awkward and where you use the second-person.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No, the content is only separated by two paragraphs. I suggest writing a subsection and using the bold function so that the audience can clearly see what you are discussing in the paragraph or paragraphs.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content has helped improve the quality of the paper and make it more complete because it adds lots of information that substantiates the existing article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the paper is that it uses academic research papers as its sources, is really clear to read, and goes into much more detail than the original article.
 * How can the content added be improved? The draft could be improved by separating what you wrote into multiple sections. Eliminate the second-person, so do not use the words "us" or "we." Make sure to go over your paper and look for grammatical error as it sounds awkward at certain parts.