User:CDseitz/Kathleen Ganley/Stephjchan 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? CDseitz
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:CDseitz/Kathleen Ganley

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, Lead should be updated with the end of her time in office.
 * 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?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Overly detailed, information such as "The department of Aboriginal Relations was renamed to Indigenous Relations, reflecting the preference of Indigenous communities, with Richard Feehan appointed Minister of Indigenous Relations," would not need to be part of the Lead and would be better under the Political Career section.

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?
 * No

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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Most but not all.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * Language could be more concise but for the most part very well written and easy to read!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Some grammatical errors which I've fixed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

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?

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?
 * Yes, content provides a lot more detail on her background and other sections which were previously nonexistent.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Completely new information has been researched and added, making the article a lot more detailed.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Adding a few citations where needed as well as making sure concise language is used is all I can think of. Otherwise, awesome work!