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

• Whose work are you reviewing? GrahamRossmore
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Draft:Daka skull

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?no
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?no
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?no
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?concise

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
• Is the content added up-to-date?yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?no

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 added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?no

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? yes
• Are the sources current? yes
• Check a few links. Do they work? yes

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? yes

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?

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?

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?yes
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?