User:Tdean005/Coracoid process/Aleong24 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Tdean005


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tdean005/Coracoid_process?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Coracoid process

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Lead was not updated
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? refer to first bullet point
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?refer to first bullet point
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?refer to first bullet point
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?refer to first bullet point

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Added content is very much relevant and belonging to the coracoid process.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Based on what I have read, and comparing it to sources I have done outside of this article, it seems to be up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Because it is still an article in process, there is some much more information that can be added.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? N/A

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? N/A
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There could be more content on how the coracoid process has changed, and the reason why it have changes from early hominins to Homo sapiens
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? N/A

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are no sources attached/listed
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) refer to first bullet point
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?refer to first bullet point
 * Are the sources current?refer to first bullet point
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?refer to first bullet point
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)refer to first bullet point
 * Check a few links. Do they work?refer to first bullet point

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Content is easy to read however some of the content does not flow easily because it is assembled in a listing order. IIt is hard to form an associate from one sentence to the next.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No necessarily errors, but there are inconsistencies with capitalizations and references
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? While the sections are broken down, there needs to be titles for these section to know where these paragraphs are going to be added to. The content is not broken down into sections, nor labeled.

Overall impressions
Overall, there is much that can be done to improve this article in terms of content and organization. The sandbox draft was not properly utilized

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of "Homemaking"
 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting