User:Cation2020/Jane S. Richardson/Blacksheep109 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)
 * Cation2020
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Cation2020/Jane S. Richardson

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * More details on the persona and a better introduction.
 * 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, think about highlighting the main point of each section in intro.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I do not think it is overly detailed, but I would consider reorganizing the sentences to make it flow a little better.

Lead evaluation
I thought all of the content was good, but I would consider rearranging it. I thought it was hard to read and the flow was not the best.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * I think it clears up the flow in some sections.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No

Content evaluation
I think your initial edits are looking good and helping with the flow.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, I think by adding the last name in place of she made it less bias.
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
I think these contributions are helping with the flow and overall make the article clearer and overall better.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Unsure
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Very
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, good range of dates from current to past.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
They all appear to be true.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Some part, some could flow better.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes and redefining the sections was very helpful.

Organization evaluation
Well organized and good flow

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?
 * None
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Still no images

Images and media evaluation
Images may be added later.

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?

New Article Evaluation
Not a new article.

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?
 * Make the flow clearer
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Unsure of what exactly was added, but the flow seems a lot better

Overall evaluation
I thought this was a great revision and made the article clearer.

Peer Review Response
Thank you for your peer review! I intend to blend what I've written with the original article and will be conscious of flow. I will also review my lead and try to highlight the main point of each section like you suggested.