User:Mmcandrew/Capacocha/Viip42 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) Mmcandrew
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Capacocha

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? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation
I think the lead has been edited well by the student in order to make it concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? no new content added
 * Is the content added up-to-date? no new content added
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no new content added
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no new content added

Content evaluation
I think that the existing content is relevant, but the order of the content is a little confusing.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? no new content added
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no new content added
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no new content added
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no new content added

Tone and balance evaluation
I think that the existing tone of the article is a little bias in some sections and the tone is not neutral - there is a section that refers to scarified children as "victims" and the term victims has bias in it

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? no new content added
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? no new content added
 * Are the sources current? no new content added
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? no new content added
 * Check a few links. Do they work? no new content added

Sources and references evaluation
I would add more diverse citations, because the information from some sections only seems to be coming from one source.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? no new content added
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no new content added
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? no new content added

Organization evaluation
Overall, the organization of the article is something that needs improving.

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?

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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? lead is more clear
 * How can the content added be improved? N/A

Overall evaluation
I think the improvements with the lead that were done are fantastic! The organization, tone, and sources of the article can be improved.