User:BreVermilion/Dora Tamana/Acbruin2024 Peer Review

General info
BreVermilion
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * I think the sentence could be a little bit longer. However, it still describes the article's topic
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does not
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No they do not

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the information is relevant to the topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, all the sources are from 19991-2016
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think maybe there should be a very brief description about the Athlone Committee for Nursery Education, as I don't know the significance of this organization
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, it does

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the article focuses on just the facts
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The early life and personal life are really small. However, I understand since it's hard to find info on her
 * 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
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the available articles are thorough
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, all sources were written between 1991-2016
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the available sources come from a variety of sources
 * 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, I couldn't find anything
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Source #1,#4, and #12 do not work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, although for some of the names it would be nice to add pronunciation parentheses as I don't know how to pronounce some of these names.
 * 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

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
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * There are 12 sources, and I believe they are reliable
 * 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
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes it, contains several links to other wiki articles.