User:Sdel002/Maba Man/Cgarc070 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)
 * Sdel002
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Sdel002/Maba Man

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
There is not a Lead section in this draft. Since a Lead is not yet established, there is not specific sentence stating what the rest of the article will cover. There are also no other sections that divide the information into headings or subheadings. I suggest adding a strong introductory sentence in the Lead section to make your article flow better and also add a brief description of 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
The article does state relevant information about the topic, but I cannot tell if it is up-to-date since I do not know where the information is coming from. I feel like there is content missing. For example, you can add to your article by stating what type of information was found through the bones of Maba Man. Also, you can add what "many different changes scientist found in the bones of Maba Man" to make your statement reliable. I believe that you can expand your article by maybe adding if Maba Man utilized stone tools, what they might have ate, and why they were labeled as an early Homo sapien. You can add what were the characteristics that made Maba Man similar or different to Homo sapiens such as cranial capacity, bipedal locomotion, and robust or gracile features. If it is difficult to find this type of information maybe an image or two can help contribute to your article.

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 tone of the article is somewhat neutral. I think the viewpoint of how important Maba Man was to the Chinese culture is overrepresented, but it can be fixed by adding sources that justify these statements. However, I don't think the article persuades the reader to take a side or be in favor of any position. The article does not state any opinions which is good.

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
There are no reliable sources cited in the draft of this article and I do not know if the information is at all reliable. Please find at least three reliable sources and reference them throughout your article. It will avoid you from being accused of plagiarism and will help the readers know exactly where the information came from. Also, please state who "they" are in the article so the article sounds more reliable.

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-written, but it is not well organized. Headings and subheadings should be utilized for an easier understanding of this topic. Additionally, I believe the article needs more information so that it is easier for you to divide the information into different smaller sections.

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?

New Article Evaluation
I am considering this article to be new since the originally published article is very short and has little to no information about Maba Man. The article is not supported by reliable secondary sources and should cite the sources from which the information was collected. The list of sources needs to be expanded. Additionally, in your draft, you can add definitions to complicated words so that the article can link to other articles through those words.

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
Overall, the article does include information that could be essential to the original post, but it needs more improvements in organizational structure. It also needs at least three reliable sources. Some word choices could be changed to improve the draft. Specifically, words like "they" should be changed. The article needs more content in order for the reader to get a better understanding of who Maba Man was. You can add physical characteristics like I mentioned before and how it differs or relates to Homo sapiens. Also, you could be specific on what the bones of Maba Man demonstrated. I think your information is valid, but it needs more to it. You got this!