User:Bluestarthinks/Self-help/Butcherm1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Bluestarthinks


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Self-help


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Self-help

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by the peer.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead does 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?
 * Yes, the lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the lead provides a great deal of information about the topic of discussion.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content that is added is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, there seems to be no missing content. All content is relevant.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps; it addresses topics that are related to historically underrepresented populations and topics.

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?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes, after reflecting on the what the cited sources say, they reflect the content accurately.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors that include historically marginalized individuals when needed.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * No, there seems to be a good list of sources listed in the references section of this article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content added in this Wikipedia article is well-written, detailed, and easy to read. Just needs some checking over for grammar.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes, but only minor issues.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is well-organized and broken down into sections that clearly reflect the major points of the topic of discussion.

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?

THERE ARE NO IMAGES ON ARTICLE

For New Articles Only
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?
 * Yes, the article meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements by adding way more than the recommended independent sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * There is a little over 50 sources used, however, they all seem to find a strong appearance throughout the article.
 * 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, the article follows the patterns of other similar articles.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes, the article has a small box that lists other topics related to the one in the article to expand knowledge.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I thought that the article provided pretty good content, maybe just add some pictures to spice things up a little bit.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Overall, I thought this was a pretty strong article and nothing really was dramatically out of place.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Definitely add some images and media and look over the grammar again.