User:Atorres2020/Attic talent/HanSharma 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? Atorres2020
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Attic talent

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Not as of yet
 * 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?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise, though can be a little tough to grasp and understand

Lead evaluation
The lead is good so far though it is tough to really grasp the information. I found my self re-reading it numerous times to better understand. Try to make it easier to read and have less numbers / stats. The numbers / stats / values can be more described in detail later on in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Not sure if content has been added yet.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Maybe an origins section could be added. How long the measurement / value has been used? Used by whom?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

Content evaluation
Content is relevant to the topic. As mentioned in the lead evaluation, try to make the content easier to understand in the lead and have more of the numerical details / statistics in the later parts of the article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
Good tone, no persuasion or favoring.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * The most current source is listed as 2009 though many of the sources have not included the date.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Most of them do, though reference number 7, "wages new," leads to a "page not found"

Sources and references evaluation
The sourcing is good and has a variety of different authors. Maybe double check some to see if they are all still working as some sources may be out of date. Also try to add information from more current sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Concise, though so far, the lead is not too easy to read.
 * 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?
 * No, not yet

Organization evaluation
Concise though lead is not easy to read. I assume more detailed will be added eventually.

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


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

Images and media evaluation
So far only one image is listed. Maybe add a few more if possible regarding different aspects of your topic.

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?
 * More content can definitely be added for the article to be more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Good analysis on the value of attic talent
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More details / history

Overall evaluation
So far this is a good start and a good basis to continue adding more to this article. The lead can be edited to be more easy to read and a table of contents can be added to detail future aspects of the article. A history section can be added in the table of contents to get a more detailed background on attic talent. I recommend looking at other units of currency / measurement Wikipedia pages to gain inspiration for this article. I am excited to read this when it is complete!