User:Angelina3000/Four-Faceted Model of Accelerating Leadership Identity/DTrap04 Peer Review

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? No only has 1 source.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Not exhaustive because there is only 1 source.
 * 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? yes they have headings similar to other articles in their article but don't have info in the sections
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No since the article doesn't have much info it doesn't have links that make it more discoverable.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? No they only have one sentence in their article so far.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strength is the sentence they added tell's you what the for-faceted model is.
 * How can the content added be improved? they need to add more content since they only have one sentence.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)