User:Achu320/2020 Women's March/Teressa.Munoz610 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 are you reviewing? Achu320
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Achu320/2020 Women's March

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 added many citations and additional information to provide more description of the topic, which helps the reader be more informed about the 2020 Women's March. The Lead's information is clear, and it fits well with the article.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation:
The content added is relevant to the Lead's topic, which includes up-to-date information appropriate to the topic. The topic is based on events that happened and is currently still happening in the year 2020.

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:
Throughout the article, the content is neutral and stating information based on what the marches are about, the leading cause, and the Women's March organization's whole purpose.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation:
Many of the sources provided are reliable news articles relevant to the topic. They are relatively new articles that came out in the past year or few years. These sources provide adequate information to improve the article's content, which the Lead added throughout the article.

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 is straightforward and easy to read, but there were a few repeated words and other minor grammar errors. The content is also well organized with headings that help the reader understand the sub-topics the writer is explaining.

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?

Images and media evaluation:
The article provides a picture from the Sept. 18, 2020 women's march, which fits nicely with the article's topic. Suppose the article provided a few more images to show people's behavior throughout the marches could help improve the article. In that case, the readers could be more attracted to reading the article with more pictures.

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:
After reviewing the article and the information added by the editor, they connected their sources to their topic well, were very organized, and made the article more complete.

~