User:Alabaw25/Agent causation/Nootiebeans Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Alabaw25


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alabaw25/Agent_causation?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Agent causation

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

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?

''New information has been added to the lead by my peer and it does reflect the new content that has been added. The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The lead is relatively concise and gives a good briefing of the topic at hand.''

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?

''The content that was added to the article is definitely relevant to the topic as it introduced a philosopher who was a founder of the theory, and a key point to the foundations of the theory. The content does seem to be up to date, and all the content that has been added does seem to add substantially to the article in a precise manner. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, however I do not believe that this is the fault of my peer, as philosophy is a field that is lacking in terms of representation and equity.''

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?

''The content added to the article is written in a neutral manner, and does not include any bias towards any position. I believe that my peer has done a substantial job in terms of using meticulous language that makes the article sound scholarly and incisive. So far the content added to the article has created a building block for more information to be added in, there are definitely viewpoints that can be included, but my peer has done a considerable amount of work in terms of adding content to the article.''

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * 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?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

''All of the resources seem to come from scholarly sources that have been peer reviewed by experts within the field. The sources seem to be thorough and definitely reflects the content that has been added by my peer, and many of the sources do seem to be current. All of the content added also all seemed to be backed up by a reference. The source also gives information that's unbiased and with a purely informative tone thats carried over into the article.''

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?

''My peer has added an image of Thomas Reid who is the founder of Agent Causation theory, and it is well captioned. The image does not seem to violate any copyright violations, and is laid out in a place where it is aesthetically pleasing to the viewers.''

Organization[edit]
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?

The content added is clear and easy to read, and does not seem to have any grammatical errors, and is well organized.

Overall impressions[edit]
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?

''The article is definitely significantly more informational than it was prior, however I do believe that a lot more work can be done on it, since the article is still in its starting phases. There are definitely more content available that can be added to the article, as the theory of agent causation is one that is complex and filled with many components. However, that is not at the fault of my peer as this article did not have much information to build upon to begin with. I think that it would be interesting to see where my peer takes the article.''