User:MPears11/Cosmic ocean/Hey2023 Peer Review

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, there has been new information added to the article, or it is shown that certain information is being put forward, and could possibly still be putting in more later.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes seems to be stated what will be being talked about and comes off organized.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Somewhat, I think it could come off a little bit more of what is potentially going to be talked about.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is Concise

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think it is still potentially being worked on, so I would not like to say they are missing something because it still seems to be being worked on.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented? No
• Does the content add to attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it is informative.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current? To me seem somewhat current they are from 2014,2015, and 2001
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? They include facts and historical facts on myth.
• 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.) Sources show they are from books, and or facts being taken out of the books, or chapters from reliable books.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
• Does the content add have any grammatical or spelling errors? Just a few here and there, but not too noticeable, just some grammar
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? For right now, yes, and it seems that potentially is going to keep going the same way it is now, whish is being put into different sections.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

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

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)

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.)