User:Nraf/Prehistoric beads in the Philippines/Talizarnegar Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Yes, my peers updated the Lead section.
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- No, the first sentence describes what the Philippines is.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes, it includes a brief description of the article's major sections.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No, the Lead does not include information not present in the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- There is a little bit too much information in the lead that doesn't need to be there, for example the explanation of what the Philippines is and detailed descriptions about what is important about beads. However, it is still a good generalization of what was stated in the article.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes, all of the content is relevant to the topic.
Is the content added up-to-date?
- The information is relatively recent. From looking at the sources, half were from the early 2000s, one was from 1988, one was from 2012, and one was from 2017.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- No, the article is very organized and contains relevant topics.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
- Yes, the content is neutral.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No, everything appears to be consistent and objective.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No, there were no viewpoints that were overrepresented or underrepresented.
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No, there was no attempt to persuade the audience.

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- No, not every sentence or new piece of information had a citation next to it. Every couple of sentences appeared to have a citation next to it.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- All of the sources discuss the topic of beads in the Philippines. There were seven sources. I am not sure if this is all of the available literature in the topic.
Are the sources current?
- They are slightly current. Half of the sources were from the early 2000s, one was from 1988, one was from 2012, and one was from 2017.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- I checked all of the links and they worked.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes, the content is well written. It goes into detail in some parts but it was needed.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- I did not see 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?
- The article is very well organized. It starts with how the beads are made and with what material, then goes into locations of where the beads are found, then classification of different periods of when the beads are dated to, then types of beads and theories. It was very easy to follow.

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Yes, there are images of different beads and a map displaying important jar burial sites.
Are images well-captioned?
- Yes, the images are well-captioned and it is easy to understand the importance of the images after reading the caption.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes, all of the photos are from Wikimedia Commons.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Yes, they are scattered throughout the article so it makes the paper easier to read.

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?
- I did not see any sources that did not pertain to their topic of beads.
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- They listed seven sources, which is a lot for such a specific topic.
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?
- Yes, in addition to the text and media, the article had section headings and contents.
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
- It links to categories such as "beadwork" and "archaeology of the Philippines" which can provide more articles on similar topics.

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- Yes, the article appears to be very complete. I got a comprehensive lesson on prehistoric beads in the Philippines when reading this article and I was not confused.
What are the strengths of the content added?
- It is very organize, neutral and easy to read. I like that there are pictures scattered throughout that make the information more understandable and allow me to see what the beads actually look like. I also like that there were examples of sites provided.
How can the content added be improved?
- I think it can be improved by heavily shortening the Lead. It is too long and contains unnecessary details and information.