User:Actuallyrmk/Loolwa Khazzoom/Mkcharlie32 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? Actuallyrmk
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Actuallyrmk/Loolwa Khazzoom

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? n/a
 * 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? no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation
According to the format of this peer review, you should have a 'brief description of the article's major sections' and you don't really mention the fact that she's written books and has been published in many magazines/journals except for mentioning she's "written extensively". So maybe just have a sentence mentioning the books she's written and/or the fact that she's been published in journals? Maybe, idk.

Also I feel like the last sentence about her being a public relations manager is kind of unrelated, and maybe should be put in the "Early Life" section instead.

Content
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? not that I know of

Content evaluation
10/10

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

Tone and balance evaluation
p good my dude

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? mostly
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I believe so
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
No source for the fact she attended Barnard College

Also no source for the fact that she's in a band (the first sentence of "Music career" section)

Some of the sources don't have links (1, 2, and 19) (but idk there could be a reason for this so)

For the "That Takes Ovaries!" source, I would instead link to the wikipedia article on it in your article instead of using it as a source, and then potentially just cite the work itself as the source of the information that she is in it.

Organization
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? not that I saw
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Organization evaluation
Potentially add a section that provides a list of her articles and books (along with the ISBNs) so the reader can easily find them

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? yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? yes
 * 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? no

New Article Evaluation
yeah, I would just add more links to other articles, and potentially a link to her band website (I'm assuming she has one)

Overall impressions
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?