User:Ahuezo004/Cooperative learning/Cgonz527 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? User: Ahuezo004
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Cooperative learning

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?

The Lead was not updated, however, it does reflect towards the new content that was added by my peer. The Lead in the article also provides an introductory sentence that clearly does describe the article's topic, and it also includes a brief description of the article's major sections. In no way do I find the article to be overly detailed, it is filled with just the right amount of information.

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?

The content added is definitely relevant to the topic as it is also up-to-date. Reading over the newly added content, it appears to me that everything added should belong in the article as it contains valuable information.

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?

I found the added content to be neutral and in no way found to be biased. While it did focus on a particular position, it was clearly detailed and all the viewpoints were presented with enough substantial information. The content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position, but it does show the reader some useful tips as to why cooperative learning is so helpful.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

All of the sources appear to be current and thorough as they clearly reflect towards the topic. The content is backed up by reliable secondary sources and all of the links appear to work.

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?

All of the content added appears to be well written and does not contain any grammatical or spelling errors. I found the content added to be very well-organized as it was transitioning towards a more specific viewpoint on cooperative learning.

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?

The image added does enhance my understanding towards the topic, and it is well-captioned. I also found the image to be laid out in a visually appealing way as it relates to the point my peer was trying to make. After reviewing the article and all of the content added, it can be concluded that the image added does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

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?

Not Applicable - Was not a new article.

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?

Not Applicable - Was not a new article.

Overall evaluation:
Overall I found the content added by my peer to be very well written and extremely valuable to the article that was edited. While only one source seemed to be a bit outdated, everything else was essential to the added content and definitely made the article more improved and complete as it provided more information towards it.