User:Cbogart1/Women in Austria/PixelatedCodex 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? Cbogart1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Women in Austria

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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Seems concise

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, everything seems to belong

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Slightly, one side is explained a little bit better than the other side. However, overall I'd say each side is represented
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoint of the effort being counterproductive could be described a little more. I'm not sure exactly why they believe it to be counterproductive.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, I don't believe it is trying to sway the reader either way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The sources do appear reliable
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They do appear thorough
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the sources seem to be up to date.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? There are no links in the article. The links in the sources work correctly.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is slightly confusing, but overall I'd say it's well written
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There aren't any spelling or grammatical mistakes.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the topic was organized 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?
 * 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, I would say it contributes to the subject and helps inform the reader on a broader perspective than what was there before.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It introduces an entirely new idea to the topic. And is very relevant to the main article.
 * How can the content added be improved? A little more explanation about how the infastructure changes were positive or negative would have been interesting.

Overall evaluation
Overall I'd say they did a good job adding on to the page. The information was interesting, and informative. The references appeared reliable. And it improved the page it was added to.