User:Phxntxsos/Bipedalism/Aleong24 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Phxntxsos, Stephdc)


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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Lead is not updated possibly due to the changes that will be made in the future . This is still just a rough draft.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? N/A refer to first bullet point answer
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? N/A refer to first bullet point answer
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A refer to first bullet point answer
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? N/A refer to first bullet point answer

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? All new information added to the article is relevant and everything was added to its respective sections.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? All sources were curated with in the 2000s, with the exception of one, so it is considerably new information.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is certainly much more information to be added because it started off as an undeveloped article. However, all the content added does belong.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? N/A

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? All the content seems to sound neutral because they are purely concepts based on evidence found. However, it is important to note that most books are not considered peer-reviewed, and "First Steps" was used as a source.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? None particularly bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Because most of the information added were just widely accepted theories, it seems that there is no other popular viewpoint.
 * 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? All sources utilized are reliable: two of which are peer reviewed articles, and the other two are education books pulled from the course.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? All but one source was released after 2000, so most information is fairly in date.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? N/A
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) --> I definitely think more articles outside of the class materials can be utilized. Most of the information provided in the two books source are more general. Having more peer reviewed articles may provide more detailed information.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written? Content was clear and concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are only 2-3 minor grammatical errors, so a proofread would certainly help.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? All the new information was easy to understand and flowed with its respective sections.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? With all the added content, the article is definitely more developed, but there is plenty of room for improvement.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Provided more of a view of bipedalism. More sub topics added with precise detail on smaller concepts related to bipedalism.
 * How can the content added be improved? Some people may not know what certain terms mean, and perhaps, hyperlinks can be added to redirect the reader.

Edits

"The form and function of the modern-day, upper body of humans..."

" It has also been proposed that..."