User:PeerlessJ/Gracility/RoxannaDiaz024 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? (PeerlessJ)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:PeerlessJ/Gracility

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
''I think you did a good job applying your term to the context of early hominins. I think you might benefit from including some kind of introductory sentence in the initial paragraph of the article to foreshadow that you'll be talking about this within an anthropological context. However, I do feel that you could maybe add a little bit more detail to your contributions so it does not appear as concise.''

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
''The content is relevant to the topic and I felt it was up to date. After reading your lead, I think everything meshes well together!''

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
''I think your content is neutral and you provided equal representations of all facets of your findings. It does not come off as persuasive at all.''

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
''Considering all of your sources came from academic journals, they are definitely reputable and I think you did a good job citing and extracting information from the sources you obtained. All of your links worked!''

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
''I did notice that you had some grammatical and spelling errors towards the beginning of your entry, such as using 'they're' in of 'their'. Some of your other sentences I felt could flow better if you rearranged the working a little bit. When reading your entry, I noticed you added an example towards the end of your first section. I think mentioning examples would work well as a sub-section to the primary paragraph you created, and if your articles list any other examples, it could be useful to include them to generate a stronger sub-section to accompany it. If possible, it'd be nice to see a little bit more content on your section pertaining to modern humans since it is so concise.''

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
''Overall, I definitely think you improved the quality of the article by adding an anthropological perspective, since the original entry was primarily based on latin and other terminology. I think one of your biggest strengths is using the diversity within your sources to enhance the main ideas of your topic. I think it's great that you added modern human implications as well to add another layer of depth to the overall article. Besides minor syntax and grammatical errors, I think simply adding some more information to your lead would be beneficial, and developing your second section some more as well. Overall, great job!''