User:RandelitoRand/Mole sauce/Jayhy15 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: User:RandelitoRand/Mole sauce

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
The lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer because the lead already includes a good introduction sentence that is concise and clear about the topic. The lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections since the lead talks about the types of mole sauce there are and the article later on explains the varieties. The lead included information that is later presented in the article. Overall, the lead is concise and not overly detailed.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant to the topic because it gives the history and varieties. The content could be more up-to-date. The content that is provided is great to have but maybe adding a section of the types of foods you can make with this sauce would be great since not everyone knows about the variety of dishes available.

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
The content added is neutral. There are no claims that appeared heavily biased towards a particular position. I didn't feel like the viewpoints were overrepresented or underrepresented. The content didn't attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position, the content was more about teaching the readers what this ingredient is.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are content that is backed up by reliable secondary source of information. The sources were thorough and there are a variety of sources used. The sources could be more current since the latest source used was from 2011. The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. After checking a few links they did seem to work.

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
The content added is well-written since it is concise, clear and easy to read. The content didn't seem to have any grammatical or spelling errors that I noticed. The content is well-organized and broken down into sections that reflects the major points of the topic.

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?

Images and media evaluation
The article does include images that enhance the understanding of the topic, but I feel like someone would enjoy seeing more images of the varieties of mole sauce so they can visualize it better. The images that were provided were well-captioned. All images adhered to Wikipedia's copyright regulations and provided a citation. The images were 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
The content added didn't improve the overall quality of the article. The strengths of the content is that not only is it organized by categories, but there is a lot of detailed information. The content can be improved by making some paragraphs smaller.