User:Capricon13/Rosa Guerra/Shizeimay Peer Review

General info
Capricon13
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Capricon13/Rosa_Guerra?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Rosa Guerra

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.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the original draft has a very simplistic lead, which has been expanded to include more information.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it explains who she is and a brief description of her ideology.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, it just references what is to come.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Very concise

Content
"Guerra begins her career as a journalist when Juan Manuel de Rosas was removed from power. Should I explain why?" I think you should probably explain why; what inspired her or why the removal of Juan Manuel de Rosas would lead to her career seems to me like something that would be both relevant and not widely known.

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is not currently much about the end of her life, though if all we really know is that she died of illness in the capital then it's understandable not to force anything that we don't know.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I do not think so.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it is written from a solid neutral position.

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.)
 * It seems to.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The authors seem to be from differing backgrounds.
 * 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?
 * Yes! It reads and flows well.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, it is broken into sections defining her life as well as some of her notable works.