User:Abrazzale/Georgina Jolibois/Kate.healy 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 I am reviewing: Abrazzale
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Abrazzale/Georgina Jolibois

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * yes, peer has updated Lead in the sandbox and updates should transfer over to the original article.
 * 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?
 * yes, lead includes introductions to all major sections and topics of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * yes, peer has done adequate research to expand on original article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Lead is concise, getting straight to the point.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Addition content includes background information on the candidate, as well as political history and bills participated in. information is extremely relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes, content reflects information from as recent as October 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I do not believe there is anything missing or that does not belong.
 * however, I might add a short section on Jolibois' reaction to Trudeau's brown face scandal, since she did speak out about the issue and it relates to her being such a strong advocate for minorities. This article might help: https://larongenow.com/2019/09/19/jolibois-speaks-out-against-trudeaus-brownface-controversy/

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, content is now neutral. I deleted some words such as 'unfortunately' that were previously included.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no, article does not present any biases, to my knowledge.
 * 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?
 * not that I can see

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes, sources seem to be reliable.
 * most sentences include a citation at the end. a few sentences are missing a citation, however.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes, sources are VERY good
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes
 * 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, peer was very effective and clear in writing.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * none that I noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes, content is broken up chronologically, which is effective.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes. article includes a statement of the large size of the constituent's riding and picture is included to show the audience exactly how large it is.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes!
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes, as image is from Wikipedia image bank.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes.

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?
 * Yes! Original article is extremely lacking and now the article paints a nice picture of who exactly the women is.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * strengths include detailed information about the women's political career.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * content may be improved possibly with more information that does not pertain directly to her political career, such as personal information.