User:Sidrair/Mummification in the Philippines/Jg0120 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):
 * Sidrair and Amalley
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Mummification in the Philippines

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * For the most part yes, but lead might be improved by including more of the important topics of the article such as site conservation.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Somewhat
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * For the most part.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content added is relevant to the course but seems a little redundant. There were times were processes of mummification were mentioned twice.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * I think it is as up to date as possible in terms of research.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content could use some more information and could also be improved by removing repeated information.

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?
 * The article focuses too much on the process itself and is repeated multiple times.
 * 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?
 * Somewhat, some articles do not appear to be academic articles
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes, as current as possible
 * 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?
 * No, some of the information is lengthy in wording and not concise. Big blocks of quotes were included where paraphrasing should have been done.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * minor grammatical errors, none regarding spelling that I could see
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Not really, the article could have included sub-categories to further organize the structure of the article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Not applicable
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Not applicable
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Not applicable

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?
 * Slightly
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * No, more academic articles could have been added to the resources as opposed to web pages
 * 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?
 * kind of
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Not necessarily, but It has the potential to with better references and more content.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The article does a good job at presenting the information on site conservation properly and stating the effects it has had on policies and its importance.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content of this article could be improved by removing the big blocks of quoted text and paraphrasing the information so that it reads better and is more concise. Likewise, there are a couple of instances where the article is repetitive, such as in mummification processes, which could be removed and supplemented with new information. Also, more academic articles could be used as references if and when including more information on the topic.