User:Chrisjnov/1933 wisconsin milk strike/Tynenmj9041 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) Chrisjnov
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Chrisjnov/sandbox

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? No, not sure what this is asking as the topic is clearly stated by them choosing their article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not that I saw.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes it does and the author describes it.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes it is concise but could use more information and citations.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not sure the author seems knowledgable about the topic and added what was missing.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes it does not take a certain side.
 * 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, the author purely states facts that add to the topic.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, maybe add some more, I also need to add more to mine.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they are thorough.
 * Are the sources current? Yes they are up to date.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? 2 out of the 3 sources work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is well written and concise, it is clear to the point and clearly states the information.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No not that I noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, was unclear at first what author edited but structured well and maybe add more information to the top part.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, but planning on adding some
 * 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?