User:Sbeaver1016/Effective Fitness (in hominin)/Skoud001 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? Sbeaver1016
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Sbeaver1016/Effective Fitness (in hominin)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not yet
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Not yet
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is more towards defining effective fitness and not towards incorporating in hominin part

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? For the most part
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes the in hominin part isn't there yet

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * 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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes in terms of defining fitness
 * Are the sources current? For the most part
 * 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? Not everywhere
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Few grammatical errors
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, maybe too many sections. I felt it was unnecessary to add so many divisions, but that is my opinion and doesn't alter the strength that the article will gain.

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?

No images were added.

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?

New Article Evaluation
This is not a new article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I feel that with just what is available to me as of right now, what is being added isn't relevant towards in hominin yet, but more so editing the article itself.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The defining of effective fitness is very precise and clear for the majority of the draft.
 * How can the content added be improved? Definitely review the article already published and see what is needed and what is already there, focus more on adding in hominin than editing the current article.

Overall evaluation
I really think the writing pattern and techniques for dividing up the article is very organized and neat! I only had one problem with one sentence. The only thing I wish I had the chance to peer review was the in hominin part. However, if the article continues the way it is going, it will be a great one! I am sorry if it seems that I am being very hard in peer review, I promise I just want you to do great, please don't take anything personally!