User:Adriannaphillips/Erin Babcock/A.danderfer 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? (provide username)
 * Adriannaphillips
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Adriannaphillips/Erin Babcock

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

Lead evaluation
The lead is short but as the article itself had barely anything before this edit, there was little to add.

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?
 * no

Content evaluation
Content added was relevant. It added a lot to the article which did not really have any information beforehand.

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
Tone is neutral, any comments that seem that may be persuasive in tone come from sources. The sentence "She has experienced the economic downfalls as well as the positive aspects that come with the unpredictable industries and has sympathy for family's going through similar situations" could be changed to "She has also mentioned that she experienced the economic..." to show that the sentence is from Babcock and not the authors sentiment.

Sources and References
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

Sources and references evaluation
Sources all come from newspapers or statements directly from Babcock on Twitter or her member statement.

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?
 * just one or two
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes

Organization evaluation
New sections added include things relevant to the section topic.

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
no images

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?

New Article Evaluation
not new

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?
 * Content added provides information on the candidates personal life and background.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * There probably is very little source material but maybe information could be added about things she has done in office.

Overall evaluation
Very well done. The article had no almost no information before hand and all the added sections and notes are relevant and well sourced.