User:Skoud001/Mosaic evolution/Nvega004 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

* 'The link on the dashboard does not link to the article. It is linked to the main sandbox of the user.'

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Skoud001
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Skoud001/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, I do not see anything to be added to the lead about mosaic evolution in hominin. Instead they are adding a sub-header.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? There is a brief explanation that it is present in the evolutionary process.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is an outline -I suggest it be made into a descriptive lead to start the addition of content.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? *There is not a lead that I can tell.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, the content is relevant and explained well.

Content evaluation:
Content is detailed and well thought out.

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, the content is just informative and not biased.

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.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, they are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?Yes, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is well-written. It is clear, descriptive, and easy to read.
 * 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, the sections are clearly broken down and easy to follow.

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? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the content has improved the quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Given sufficient information about mosaic evolution in the evolutionary process of hominin.
 * How can the content added be improved? The article can be improved by adding to the lead and using the outlined information to reflect the content added.