User:Cgarc070/Australopithecus garhi/Lfay002 Peer Review

Cgarco70/Australopithecus garhi

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?
• Cgarco70
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
• User:Cgarc070/sandbox
• Australopithecus garhi

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?

Lead evaluation

The lead in the sandbox draft does extend the lead description in the original A. garhi wiki. You described the tools that were used by this species and extended the information that was originally there. If you make a paragraph out of the lead and then cite the paragraph this will break up the content nicely.

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?

Content evaluation:

The content is relevant to the lead. The diet was described and the morphology changes that took place due to the diet. Maybe cite were you got the information about the diet.

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

I think that the anatomy of the A. garhi is described but should be another paragraph and cite the information. If in its own paragraph then the details can be examined A. garhi vs A afarensis or Homo.

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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

The sources were there and worked. They were current, and reflected the literature on the topic. The information was backed up by reliable google scholar source.

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

The content was well written and easy to ready. I didn’t see grammatical errors or spelling, but I do feel the sections need to be broken up into different paragraphs to reflect the points.

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?

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 think this was very well written. Needs to be broken up into paragraphs, and cited following the information in the paragraphs. If Homo or A. afarensis is mentioned its a good idea to link the topic to its wiki page. The easy way to do this is type homo or Australopithecus, highlight then click the link symbol on the top of the page. This also helps the reader information when they an click on the name and it takes them right to the wiki page of the subject. Well done overall.