User:RoxannaDiaz024/Ammoglyph/Radroni21 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)
 * RoxannaDiaz024
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:RoxannaDiaz024/Ammoglyph

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 an excellent job adding to the article's Lead! It gives a solid snapshot into the remainder of your article without providing too much detail.''

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
''Your content is relevant, up to date, and I don't see anything that I would consider to be missing or out of place. Great work!''

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 overall very neutral as you simply provide facts without including any bias or opinion that could be used to persuade the reader any way. The only way I think your balance could be improved is if you mention earlier in the article, maybe in the Lead section, that there is some debate about if the Ammoglyphs are distinctly man made or if they could have possibly been created through natural causes rather than including that in the "challenges to developing research" section of your article. This way it doesn't appear that the possibility of being made in nature is an issue that prevents research from being performed, but instead is an alternate view of how these Ammoglyphs were formed,''

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
''You did a great job finding literature that is up to date on Ammoglyphs, and citing them in your post. All of your links and citations appear to work, and they are all secondary sources of information. That being said I do have a couple of ideas for ways to improve the sources of the article just a little bit more.''

To start looks like your second, third, and fifth sources ("Patterns in the sand...) and your first, fourth, and sixth sources ("Ancient sand drawings found") are actually from the same source, and could be reduced into one citation that you repeat each time you use it; like you did with your eighth source ("Ammoglyphs - A New Name..."). Also, I am not sure the "Ancient sand drawings found" article is considered fully reliable, as I could not find the author (Kristina's) credentials any where on the blog page you cite. However if you were able to find who the author is and why she is credible to discuss Ammoglyphs, I don't think there is any issue with using her blog posts as a source. Lastly, when citing the same source over and over again for the same paragraph, I believe wikipedia recommends simply citing the last sentence of that paragraph instead of repeatedly throughout, because I had the same question while writing my own entry and that was the posted solution from the help page.

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
''All of the content included is definitely clear and easy to read, but I found a couple of grammatical/spelling errors sprinkled throughout (such as the third sentence in the first paragraph being a little bit of a run-on sentence and using "research" where I think you meant to say "researcher"). That being said they are all minor and are relatively quick fixes if you re-read your article out loud.''

''I think your content is also well-organized, and that you named your sub-sections in really effective ways. All that I would recommend is altering the type of headings you use to identify headings from subheadings so that the final table of content is more easily understood. This can be done while you are editing your article by going to the drop down menu that says "paragraph" and selecting which type you want to use for that specific section.''

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
''The information you added definitely made the article more complete, and I think you've transformed it well beyond the "stub" that it is identified as now. The strengths of the content include keeping the information easy to understand by breaking it down into understandable sections, sticking to the facts about ammoglyphs, identifying more reliable sources about the topic and keeping it interesting without including any bias. There are only a handful of ways I think your article can be improved that I have already mentioned, but beyond them I think you are in excellent shape.''