User:MArtin9712/Mahua (snack)/Maggiehoang 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)
 * MArtin9712
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:MArtin9712/Mahua (snack)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes. It has been updated and seems to be more refined than the original article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * It does by describing what the snack is with wiki links for more information about the other ingredients.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does give us a good overview about what the article will be able.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No. The information in the lead looks relevant.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise. It is a good length to inform us about the snack.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. The article is broken down nicely with the content, easier to read.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes. The content is new added by the editor.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No. They all are relevant.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * I think the content added is neutral. There aren't any convincing wording. It is mostly information about the snack.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No. I don't notice any biases.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No. The content is closely distributed. It has a good amount of information.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. There are no convincing sides.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes. There are some reliable sources, but some are blogs (not sure about how reliable they are, but they are written in a neutral tone)/
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes. They give us more insight on this snack.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes. I noticed it is all within the last 10 years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * #3 does not link to the article but to the homepage.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I think it is concise and clear. The way you broke down the old lead into content was a good idea.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not notice any.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. Broken down very nicely instead of a paragraph of information.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * It is.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes. It looks like it was from wiki
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes. The one image has the information with origin which is helpful.