User:CharlesGDH/Themistoclea/SeantrottUML 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? (CharlesGDH)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:CharlesGDH/Themistoclea

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, has a plan on what to add
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No, no major changes
 * 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? Yes, at least a plan to add info that isnt there
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? no

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Not much added
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? 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?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Can not find any new links for new work added

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Charles has a clear plan on how hes going to edit his article but has not really done any of the edits in his sandbox yet so there is not much for me to peer review.