User:Alexperez53/Gender pay gap in the United States tech industry/Estherjacob 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) alexperez53
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Gender pay gap in the United States tech industry

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
Alex added a sentence to the end of the lead. There is also a paragraph in his sandbox that he is working on which appears to me to be the lead. the editing in his sandbox is great! I think the first couple of sentences are great and describes the gender pay gap more clearly than the lead that the article has now. It could definitely still use some editing but it is a great start. I would suggest adding more examples of tech industries that are affected by the gender pay gap. Also remember that the lead should introduce topics that will be discussed further in the article. It may be a bit overly-detailed now. I would suggest perhaps mentioning that there are several states working to close the pay gap in the lead and further the subject (which states and how they will accomplish it) later in the article. Be sure to discuss everything in the lead in 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?

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant to the topic, up to date and belongs in the article.

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
In the sandbox draft Alex removed a sentence from the lead that did not appear to be neutral (good job!). As of now, the draft is neutral and does not appear biased in anyway. Much of the information Alex added were from reports which is a great source of evidenced based information. The content does not attempt to persuade the reader.

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?

Sources and references evaluation
I clicked on several of Alex's links and they all worked and were relevant and up to date.

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
Alex made a few grammatical corrections which were good. The content added is well written and well organized. Some of the content was not actually added to the article yet but I think it will be a great addition to the lead.

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
Alex did not add any images yet.

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
N/a - 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?

Overall evaluation
Overall Alex is doing a great job. The content in the sandbox is very informative and brings in good statistics and other information backed up by reliable and current sources. If the sandbox draft is going to be added to the lead as I believe it will be, I would suggest just going over it one more time and ensuring that the lead is concise and brief and then go on to expand on what is in the lead in the article. Once added to the article I think it will be a great contribution.