User:Looganealabbas/Punu people /Almmapp 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)  Looganealabbas
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Punu people

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?  There is no clear lead. 
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?  No. 
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?  No. There are no specified sections. 
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?  N/A 
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?  N/A 

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?  Yes, however, there seemed to be a lot of talk about other cultures and then just saying how they relate to the Punu. 
 * Is the content added up-to-date?  Yes, the most recent source is from 2010. 
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?  The whole article needs work. 

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?  From what I can tell, yes. 
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?  I don't believe so. 
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?  I'm not sure. 
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?  No, it does not. 

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?  The sources discussed in the user's sandbox is reliable. With that being said, I'm not sure what information goes with what source due to the lack of citations. 
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?  Yes, they do. 
 * Are the sources current?  Yes, they are. 
 * Check a few links. Do they work?  There are no citations, and there are about 10 links that have no page. 

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?  It is very difficult to read due to the excess of run-on sentences. 
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?  While there are only a few spelling errors (ex: using "there" in place of "they"), there is an abundance of grammatical errors. 


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?  Not at all--the page lacks organization and sectioning. 

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?  Yes, it does. 
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?  It's probably not representing all available literature, but there 4 sources which is enough in this case. 
 * 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?  No. 
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?  There is one external link, so I'd say yes. 

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?  The content is there, but I cannot say that is complete. 
 * What are the strengths of the content added?  It's all good information, but it is not organized and worded well. 
 * How can the content added be improved?  The structure of the article overall needs improvement.