User:Bribrisweet/22Kill/Natasha14738 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? Bribrisweet/Mary Mijares
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Social_Movements_and_Social_Media_(Spring_2020)&diff=prev&oldid=955619226

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?: Yes, but the lead is a little too long now.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: Yes, I know exactly what the article is going to describe.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?: No, it does not.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: Yes, the Lead is most of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: It is overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?: Yes!
 * Is the content added up-to-date?: Yes!
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: There is a lot of content missing, from discussing the organizations mentioned in the lead to the causes for the creation of the article's subject.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?: Yes, veteran suicide rates need to be more talked about.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?: Yes, there are no heavily positive or negatively connotative words.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?: No, just summaries and facts.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: There is a lot of information about the actual organization without context surrounding it.
 * 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?: Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?: They are well-tied to the content, but there could be more.
 * Are the sources current?: They are not very current, only one source is from the current year.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?: No, the sources are mostly from white authors.
 * 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?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?: No.
 * 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?; Yes!
 * What are the strengths of the content added?: There is context added about causes for the organization (veteran suicide rates, similar organizations).
 * How can the content added be improved?: All the content is in the Lead, and there needs to be a lot more expansion in the latter half of the article.