User:Caamilaaespi/Hilda H. Kroeger/Izzmidge 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? (provide username) Caamilaaespi
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Hilda H. Kroeger

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * 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? no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes, biography about Hilda
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? maybe add a little more information about her past and what led to her accomplishments as a person. It is important to note where she came from.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? yes and yes, personally I did not know who this was until I read this article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes, provided facts and given a biography
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no, straight forward
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? like mentioned before, her accomplishments are the only real thing noted here, there should be something about her leading up to this.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no, straight forward

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes, reliable sources were added.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes, all are in context of Hilda and her life
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes, diverse and not just have a direct viewpoint of her, making them liable.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes all work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes, very easy to read and straight to the point, but maybe go in depth about a few things.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, seems pretty well, just a few grammatical errors that can be easily fixed. (commas, semi-colons, etc)
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, easy to follow and leads up to everything very well.

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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? very good list of sources, and is represents accurately all the literature of 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? All of the inboxes are correctly used and section headings are properly used.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? no

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is good quality, the only thing I would add is some more in depth details.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added is solid and very easy to read.
 * How can the content added be improved? Just add some more details

Overall evaluation
Very strong article and easy to read. This article is very straight to the point, but I would add some more about the build up of her life before she became so successful. I would also just add some more minor details or go into depth about a few more things just to give more explanation as to what is being said. Overall, very well done and makes it clear what is being said, I would like to read something like this if I were to do a report on Hilda.