User:StefaniCastaneda/Yanomami Blood Controversy/Marcus17620 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 : Stefani Castaneda
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:StefaniCastaneda/sandbox

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?

The lead reflects the topic well and under this first sub-heading titled 'Yanomami Blood Controversy', there is a well-constructed background on what the controversy is all about. The information in the lead is explained in further detail throughout the other sections of the paper. The lead was easy to understand and that helped me grasp the information of the entire wiki page. If you have the time, maybe you could add a sentence or two on any other stakeholders that were involved in this controversy. It's not necessary to add this information if you do not have the time. Your starting section again is already well-developed and maybe someone else can add that information.

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?

The content added is relevant to the topic and your dates look to be actuate. No content seems to be missing or out of place when comparing your background section with your lead section titled 'Yanomami Blood Controversy'. Your topic does address related historical information on this population and it looks like you are the first one to directly create a page strictly covering the controversy itself. So therefore your article does well filling in gaps of information on the Yanomami people. So basically, you have some good content. Like I mentioned in the lead section in this peer review, additional information about other people that were involved might be an option to add, but I think what you already have here is sufficient enough.

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?

There does not seem to be any biases. Even though the information is about the Yanomami people and how anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon and geneticist James Neel affected the people, it was done factually and not out of bias. No viewpoints were overrepresented or underrepresented. I would not say that the information is persuading (which would make it not neutral), but rather good factual information that explains how the Yanomami people were taken advantaged of.

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?

The first source I did not know who the author was and I do not know how recent the source is because there is no date when you click on the link. The second source seems to be fine, but might be in the gray area. Nevertheless, I think your second source is valid. Your first source is probably valid too, but having some way to add who wrote the text and a way to show a date would be valuable. However, the third and fourth sources look like they are the exact same. The third/fourth source looked valid. Each of these sources were thorough and they had information that was in the wiki page. I would just try to see if more information can be found on your first source when it comes to the author and date. I would recommend adding an additional source just in case. This additional source can replace the fourth source because the third source is the same. I would also like to recommend to sprinkle your citations a bit more across your entire wiki page. Just add two to three more citations at the end of a few sentences. You could do this with an addition of a new source or from the sources you already have. Sprinkling more citations lowers the changes of Wikipedia taking your work down. They like to see more citations. The information in the wiki page is good, but there just needs to be a few things to address for the sources.

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?

The article content is broken down into three easy to follow sections which guided me through the article. The content is good, however, I did find some grammar mistakes.

PARAGRAPH 1: geneticist James Neel. who took blood samples (take out the period after Neel). Instead of saying "The return of the blood samples took almost four decades so they could be turned over to the Yanomami". . . simplify this to "The blood samples took almost four decades to return".

PARAGRAPH 2: the diseases ravaging their tribes  (take out the word their and replace it with Yanomani ). Yanomami learned that their blood were being kept (replace were with was)

PARAGRAPH 3: Their funerary processes are very scared (replace scared with sacred)

The article just needs a little bit more tweaking, but it is almost there. Even though the content mentioned in the article is good, these fixes should give the article a better flow. I would look over the article again to see if I missed anything, but I believe I already found the mistakes.

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

The article has no images, but images are not necessary for the assignment. So the rest of these questions are not applicable.
 * 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.

I believe the sources need to be worked on just a bit. The content of the sources is great, but just need to find more information on the publications of the first source and find another source to replace one of your duplicate sources (the fourth source). The sources do accurately represent literature on the topic. The article looks like it meets the rest of the notability requirements. The pattern of the article is easy to follow. There is a brief section explaining what the paper is about, then a background section, and then a conclusion section. There were no article links to other articles, but I do not think that is a problem.
 * 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:

In conclusion, fixing those grammar mistakes will give the article more of a flow and it will make the article even stronger. Adding more citations from the sources you already have will also strengthen the article. Finding more information on the first source and finding an additional source would help to. I hope this is not discouraging. The article is like 90% there. The strengths of this article are its content and how it was broken down into a timeline format.
 * 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?