User:Briannastjean/Theory of Hyper(in)visibility/DTrap04 Peer Review

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 has at least 2 reliable sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The sources are not exhaustive because they don't have much info in their article as of now.
 * 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? Their Headings follow the pattern but they don't have much info so I don't know if the rest of the article will follow the boxes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? So far the articles make the info available in the article more discoverable.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Can't really give my opinion on this as there is only one section of info on the article at the moment.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? So far the article body has good info and has the sources to help expand on the info
 * How can the content added be improved? Could add more pictures and could add more info even though I know its not complete.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)