User:NotArmandoG/Hunting hypothesis/Jtruongucr Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

NotArmandoG


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NotArmandoG/Hunting_hypothesis?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hunting hypothesis

Evaluate the drafted changes
NotArmandoG's sandbox draft is well written and well organized. I find that this sandbox article is concise yet detailed enough for readers to understand the topic at hand. There is a lot of good information that the user incorporated throughout the entire article!

In terms of the lead, I noticed that the user did not add anything to this section. Since the user wrote and discussed new topics that weren't discussed in the wikipedia page (women's involvement in the hunting hypothesis, the gathering hypothesis, and the gathering hypothesis controversy), I think it would be best to update the lead to reflect the new content being added by the user. I think just an introductory sentence that concisely describes the topics being talked about would be sufficient.

The user elaborated on the sexual division of labor (evolutionary perspective) section. I think the additional sources and explanations are relevant and great additions to this particular section. I do think that this section can use some polishing and what I mean by that is maybe the addition of some transition words will help the section flow more nicely! But overall I think this section was great!

In terms of women's involvement in the hunting hypothesis, I really liked how this elaborated more on the previous section and it helps tie in the information written by the user. It is well written and all the content is backed up by reliable secondary and primary sources of information. I really enjoyed reading the different examples of women's involvement in the hunting hypothesis and I think they are great additions to the article. Overall, I think this section was well written!

In terms of the Gathering Hypothesis and Gathering Hypothesis controversy, I like how the user presents different perspectives of the hypotheses. Each perspective was backed up by reliable secondary and primary sources of information and was well explained by the user. The user did a great job keeping a neutral tone when explaining the gathering hypothesis controversy and the claims do not appear heavily biased toward a particular position.

The original wikipedia article does have a lot of information about different provisioning hypothesis, so I think it was a good idea adding different perspectives. The user displays multiple strengths throughout this draft and I think with some more time and minor edits, this article will be great!