User:Asdfghjkl448/Varvara Yakovleva (politician)/Wcoz98 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)
 * Asdfghjkl448
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Asdfghjkl448/Varvara Yakovleva (politician)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * It has been shortened from the original article
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Sort of, it describes the events of her life succinctly, and then the article reflects that.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Not much added, but relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, for somebody from that time period. Looks like the only new source was from 1967.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The first source that is cited is invisible to me. Might be on my end.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, it describes a woman politician in a time when women's liberation was an issue.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, although there isn't much.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There is one new source that I see.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There could be some more out there that would help the article, for sure.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Latest in the sandbox is 1967.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No, just one author
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, very concise like the other one.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * N/A
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

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?
 * N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * N/A
 * 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?
 * N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Not much has been added
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It is concise like the other article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More info would be great in a new draft.

Overall evaluation
It is a good start, but I don't really see much new info. Adding more sources and info would be a great next step for a draft.