User:Sdel002/Maba Man/Jacobshanks10 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? User: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? no
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? no
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? no

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? not sure
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, some content is missing. I think more information could be added providing examples to support your ideas.

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? I think there are some viewpoints that are underrepresented, because there is a brief statement but not much information to further discuss the subtopic (such as culture).
 * 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? No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? no
 * Are the sources current? no
 * Check a few links. Do they work? no sources

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Some sentences are somewhat unclear and need more explanation, in addition to sources.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are some grammatical errors and some sentences that are structured in an odd way. Fixing these issues would allow for an easier read and an overall better article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No, the content should be broken up into three elaborate 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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is more complete; however, I think more information could still be added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? There is good information included about the discovery and culture, which the original article is lacking.
 * How can the content added be improved? sources!! using citations will make your writing reliable and digging through more sources will help you expand upon your ideas.