User:Arslan2607/Andrei Gromyko/Carson277 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)
 * Arslan2607
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Arslan2607/Andrei Gromyko

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
In this draft, the lead has not been updated. The editor has created a new section titled "Andrei Gromyko's negotiation during the Cuban Missile Crisis."

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?

Content evaluation
Andrei Gromyko was a Soviet Belarusian communist politician during the Cold War, during which the Cuban Missile Crisis took place. Currently, the Gromyko article lacks a section dedicated to his involvement in the Cuban Missile Crisis so a section to that effect seems like a good idea. The content added appears up to date and everything is relevant to Gromyko's involvement in the Cuban Missile Crisis. The draft does not however, deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps; however, that seems to be a result of the topic being researched rather than a bias of the editor.

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
For the most part, the content added is neutral; still, there are some specific claims that seem to imply an opinion rather than referencing factual information. For instance, the editor writes, "He believed the complete opposite..." in reference to Dean Rusk's stance on Cuba's relationship with the USA and Soviet Union. Unless explicitly evident from the source, it is a good idea to avoid using language that implies an opinion from the editor. A better way of phrasing that line would be to jump directly into the quote or paraphrase Dean Rusk's stance without using that specific phrase to segue into that part of the article. Outside of this, the content added does a good job of providing more information and context for the topic without trying to convince the reader in favor of one position.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All of the links are functioning and take the reader to exactly the source being referenced. The content is backed up using multiple reliable secondary sources of information, such as scholarly and peer reviewed articles. Moreover, the sources also include archives which provide direct quotes from those directly involved in the topic being discussed. It appears that the sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors; still, the way in which the editor uses those sources is balanced and does not favor any particular position.

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
The content added is well written because it is concise, clear, and easy to read. There are one or two spelling errors but they can easily be fixed after proofreading the new content before publishing it. Currently, the content added is from one section and so I cannot comment on its organization. I will say, the structure of the new content is such that it is easy to understand and is informative.

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?

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?

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?