User:Nraf/Prehistoric beads in the Philippines/Meleniematian 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) https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/Lilit%20Arustamyan https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/Margarita%20Arzoumanian https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/Nraf
 * 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 it has been.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the introductory sentence is concise and clear.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes it does. The lead gives a great brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead includes all parts.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead does contain a lot of material, yet it is clear and concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes all the material is related to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes the content is added up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do not believe there is missing content or content that does not belong.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes the content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Overall, the article does not contain any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No there are not.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No the content does not persuade the reader towards any particular position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes it is.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes the sources are thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Half of the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes the content is clear and well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I have not seen any grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is organized and broken down efficiently.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes it does.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes they are well captioned. The captions describe the image.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes they do.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes they are, which are great!

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 is.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes the sources accurately represent all available literature.
 * 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 the article does link to others.

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? It provides strong details that support the subject of the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? I do not think anything should be improved; this looks like a great detailed article.