User:TheDudeHotep/Biological anthropology/Mollykleze Peer Review

Lead

The Lead of the article is very to the point and concise. There is no fluffing or unnecessary details. My peer has not made any changes to the lead or the sandbox yet. However, I do suggest adding 2-3 more sentences to the Lead since there are only 2. I think at least one of the sentences should focus on the 3 major sections the article is then broken into.

Content

I do think the content in the article is relevant to the topic. I think there could be more added like findings that came about in the field of biological anthropology. There seems to be a heavy focus on actual biological anthropologists, and not the study itself and what is has become. I also think adding more information under the "New Physical Anthropology" subhead would be beneficial to the article. Overall, all the content currently present in the article is good and relevant to the topic. I do think there needs to be some addition of more content about what the field has done and things like that.

Tone and Balance

I think all of the content in this article has been very well written, and comes across in an extremely unbiased tone. I do feel as if some of the content is outdated, and there needs to be some new, 21st century content added. There is no content information from after the 20th century. I do not think this article deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps at all. Biological anthropology is a field of science, so there should be plenty of information out there on this.

Sources and References

All of the sources currently used in the article seem to me to be very notable and trustworthy sources. The sources are accurately used throughout the article and do reflect what the sources say themselves. Many of the sources are textbooks written by academic scholars of the field, and there is a diverse range. There is no focus on just one academic. With that, I do believe the content is thorough and notable. There is only one current source, from 2015, and the rest are really outdated. I clicked on a few links and they do seem to work.

Organization

The organization of the information is good overall, however there is what change I would make. I would move the Branches section from before the Origins section to after the Origins section. Personally, I think it would flow better to first have the history of biological anthropology and then break down the branches that have come from it. I do find the content to be very easy to read. I noticed a few run-on sentences, for example the very first sentence of the Lead.

Images and Media

There is are images present in the article that enhance the understanding of the topic. All of them are correctly cited when clicked on.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)