User:RandelitoRand/Mole sauce/Icedmatchalatte 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? RandelitoRand
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Mole Sauce

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, the lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead includes an introductory sentence that describes the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Kind of, but not really
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the information included in the lead is present in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, but could use more information about the contents included in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the content added is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not sure, I do not have prior knowledge of the topic.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, the article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and it doesn't address topics related to historically underrepresented populations/topics, but it is neutral.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are no clams that appear biased towards a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, represents all types of Mole sauce

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, but there are some sentences where a citation is needed.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, I believe so.
 * Are the sources current? The sources range from 1980 - 2010s.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, many from the United States and many from Mexico, etc.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * 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
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Somewhat, 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?
 * 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? No
 * What are the strengths of the content added? -
 * How can the content added be improved? Add new content/information, complete some citations for sentences to make the article more complete than what it already is.

Overall evaluation

 * Overall, the article is at a good standing for users all around the world to read, but citations could be added to make the article more complete. The pictures in the article really make the article stand out.