User:Sarag720/Mos Teutonicus/Sofialr3931 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? Sarag720
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Sarag720/Mos Teutonicus

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?: The current lead for the article is very short and does not contain much information. The user stated that they are planning on adding more information to it in order to make it more complete. They will add relevant information like the importance of Mos Teutonicus, which I believe is good and something that is very important to be found in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: Yes, I think the introductory sentence does a good job at explaining what the article is about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?: No it does not. The article currently only has three major sections. I noticed that the "Prohibition of the practice" section specifically is not mentioned in the lead at all.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: It is currently very concise. I think adding a few more details about what is going to be discussed in the article would be helpful.

==== Lead evaluation: Overall, even though the lead is very short, it does a good job and concisely explaining what Mos Teutonicus is. I had never heard of this before and just by reading the lead I had a good idea of what the article was going to be about. I do think that it could be a little longer and include more details, since it is currently only two sentences long. ====

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?: Yes, the content that the user is planning on adding is relevant to the topic. For example, I liked where you said you wanted to add more to the "Process" section since it does not have enough information about the importance of removing the heart.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?: Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: In the current article there is information missing, but the user addressed it in the sandbox and is planning on adding more information to the article. I think the user has very good ideas and has a clear draft of what they are planning on adding.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?: No.

==== Content evaluation: When looking at the article, my first thought was that the "Process" section needs more information. It seems very concise and lacks details. I am glad you are planning on adding more information to that section, because I believe it is one of the main sections of the article, since it explains how Mos Teutonicus was achieved. ====

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?: Yes, I do not see any biases or opinions.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?: No. Everything in the article and everything planning to be added is all factual information.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: No. This is a good article to choose because there aren't really many different opinions since it is something factual that happened, and it happened many many years ago.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?: No. Everything that is planning on being added will be coming from credible sources. I did not sense any sense of bias in the user's plan for the article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?: Yes. The user has a long list of sources in their sandbox (10). Everything currently written out in the sandbox is linked to a source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?: Yes. All the sources can contribute to the article. They are all reliable and scientific.
 * Are the sources current?: Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?: Yes, many sources have scientific and medical evidence. They come from archaeologists, historians, and scientists.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?: Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?: What has been added is well written and concise. More information will be added, but I think you are doing a very good job at being concise and informative, without adding too many details or too little.
 * 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. There is a clear plan written out.

==== Organization evaluation: Everything is well organized. User has a very clear idea of what they want to add to the article, and what they have written out in sandbox is currently concise and informative. No grammatical errors. ====

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?: The article currently has one image. It has a good caption explaining it. The user said they are planning on adding more images.
 * Are images well-captioned?: The current image is well captioned. It explains what the process of Mos Teutonicus was used for.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?: Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?: Currently, yes. The only image found in the article is at the beginning, which draw immediate attention.

==== Images and media evaluation: Currently the article only has one image, but the user said they are planning on adding more, so there is no concern here. Maybe an image of the actual bones (if there's any) would be helpful to help the readers visualize what it is about (or the process). ====

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?: Yes the article will definitely be more complete once all the information is added. It seems like you really know what you want to contribute to the article, and you have a lot of sources to help you.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?: The lead will be stronger once you add to it, and the sections will have more detail, which will make the overall article much stronger. I think the background section is pretty strong, since it contains more information than the other two sections.
 * How can the content added be improved?: The lead needs work because it is only two sentences long. Also what will be discussed in the sections has to be added to the lead. The background section is the longest, and a good Wikipedia article has pretty balanced sections, so it is good that you are planning on adding more information to the other two sections as well.

==== Overall evaluation: You found a lot of good sources. I am very impressed by the amount of sources you already have. You also have a very clear idea of what you want to add to the article, and it all sounds good. I think you are on track to making this article much better than it originally was. I really liked the topic you chose, because I had never heard of it. Overall I really like your plan. The lead and the "Process" and "Prohibition of the practice" sections need more information and more detail. ====