User:Nraf/Prehistoric beads in the Philippines/Jg0120 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)
 * Nraf, Lilit Arustamyan, and Margarita Arzoumanian
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Prehistoric beads in the Philippines

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?
 * it is slightly overly detailed and could be shortened a little bit

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, it includes more recent research.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content on the topic all seems to be there and it does not seem as though there is any extra information that does not belong there. Everything had a point.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Viewpoints presented have equal coverage and all seem accurately represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * While the articles that were referenced are quality articles, I think there may have been more articles that could have been used.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are as recent as they could be, given the lack of archaeological research available from the Philippines.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes, although plenty of information is available, it was all clear and concise
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * there were minor grammatical errors in the article, but nothing that was too apparent or that would negatively affect the article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes

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?
 * yes, all image captions are short and informative
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I thin they do
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes

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?
 * The article appears to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * There might be more material out there that could be added in order to be more representative of the available information. However, this all depends on how much information there is published on the topic.
 * 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?
 * yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The information and content added to the Wikipedia page improves the quality of the article. It seems to be put together very well.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the article are how well it is organized. All ideas flow from one another and the order of topics makes sense. It is also helpful that they added enough pictures to give an idea of the beads they are referring to.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Overall, I do not think that there is too much that needs to be added in order to improve the article. One of the only suggestions would be to make the lead slightly more concise and if possible reference more articles.