User:Sofialr3931/Plomo Mummy/Classaboutdeadpeople 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) Sofialr3931
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Sofialr3931/Plomo Mummy or Plomo Mummy

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? No sections yet.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
I believe the lead is very good. It opens with a neutral well-balanced summary of some of the most important topics regarding the Plomo Mummy.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
There is no content! The introduction framed well some good future discussions. I agree with Sofialr3931's sandbox notes that it would benefit from adding sections. It would be helpful to have a "Discovery" and a "Scientific Examinations and Conclusion" section like they suggested. I think these are two topics that were briefly introduced in the leading section, so they can be expanded upon.

The information about the parasite that is in the last sentence will surely need expanded upon or taken out. It is isolated without context.

I also think this article would benefit from context or the history of the sacrifices that the Plomo Mummy comes from.

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 lead in the article as well as Sofialr3931' sandbox draft is neutral and balanced. There is no apparent opinions or positions being taken. I think that when addressing a sensitive topic such as human sacrifice it is important to stay neutral for this medium.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The small amount of text that is available on the article as of now is very well cited, and the links work. The majority of sources are from secondary resources such as research journals, so it seems very reliable and current. They also have 5 unpublished references in the their sandbox that seem very reliable and add to the article especially once there are more sections like they plan on adding.

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
Currently, the article lacks organization because it does not have sections after the lead. It is under developed.

The grammar is good. I did not see any grammatical errors. The sentence organization could be improved in the lead. Perhaps, focus on making the lead chronological. i.e. history, discovery, scientific investigation, current display/use or research.

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?

Images and media evaluation
I really like the pictures that are there. They accent the lead well with the picture of the mummy and where it was found. When adding the discovery it would be helpful to see a picture of the discoverer if possible.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The article is not complete, but I think it is heading in the right direction. Adding a few sections would really contribute to the depth of subject material covered in this article.