User:RoxannaDiaz024/Ammoglyph/TLHami26 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

 * Roxanna Diaz
 * 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
The lead is precise and clear with little excess information. The introductory sentence is short and to the point and has a simple follow up sentence.The lead is inline with an abstract of the article and doesn't have unnessecary detail. The backround information provided is brief and relevant to the topic.

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
Each topic selected is relevant without straying too much from the focus. The third topic could have been less relevant but was nicely written to stay focused on the ammoglyphs instead of the research.

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
Most of the information is straight forward and factual with very little bias. Some bias could be read at the begining of the second topic by using the term "most prominent" and in the third topic the term "upcoming prevalence" but is very minor. The second and third topic are solely based on the last source

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
All the sources used were published within the last five years. The second reference is duplicated two other times at the bottom and the first source is duplicated as well. It would be beneficial to add a reference section thru the insert tab then select template.

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 article is well organized though instead of using sub-headings for each topic a normal heading would be fine. The title of each section is precise with no extra fluff attached. There are no obvious grammar or spelling errors. Except the second sentence of the lead at the end write year before 2019.

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
There are no images but the article could be enhanced by one or two images of an ammoglyphs, fossilization, or something similar.

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 improvements greatly expand on the current article with new sections and additional detail. I would suggest finding one or two more articles to help fill out your topics and add another perspective. Your article is well written with good facts.