User:Viip42/Disposal of human corpses/Adp2020 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?
 * -Viip42
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Disposal of human corpses

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, it has some information regarding my peers edit.
 * 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?
 * To some extent. There are some things that can be added to make the lead contain more information
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No

Lead evaluation
The lead is informative and concise. You might be able to add some information to the lead that is in the article but missing in the lead. They also corrected spelling errors in the lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content was relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, it was up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, nothing is missing or irrelevant
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, talks about less common death practices

Content evaluation
Content added was good. Addressed the dispute on the article that was placed by the Wikipedia community.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The new content that was added by Viip42 was neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * In the sky burial section about eco-friendliness of the practice seems a little biased, I think restructuring the sentence can hep change the tone of the sentence.
 * 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?
 * The new content added by Viip42 does not seem to favor one thing or the other.

Tone and balance evaluation
I think you can improve the Sky burial section by changing the sentence structure and tone to remove bias towards that topic.

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?
 * To some extent, the article is informative and long. You can enhance the article by adding more sources.
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes and I am not sure
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes they worked, the only one that did not work was reference 4.

Sources and references evaluation
You started to add citations to the article and it is looking great. I think you can make it more reliable if you continue adding citations as part of your final project.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * There are some sections like the 'other less common' topic, it can be its own section

Organization evaluation
You did a great job going through the article and correcting spelling errors. I think you can make structural changes to the article to have better flow. It was organized in the beginning, but the ending is really cluttered with a lot of words.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media No


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Images and media evaluation
There is only one image for the the whole article.

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
I really liked what you started with the article. I know you will do a great job in improving the article. You addressed the neutrality claim by Wikipedia and added citations to the article. The spelling errors you found would have been only possible if you were closely looking, which means you have read the article and are dedicated to improving it. I think you can add things to the lead that are missing form the rest of the article. I think you can also make some structural changes to the article near less common practices and make a new section. If you decide to go on that path, you can elaborate on the topics and add citations to them, currently the link takes you to another wiki article and is not specific to disposal of human corpses. If you need more things to add, you can add pictures to the article to help associate different practices with an image.