User:CocoaPuff27/Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo/GamersRightsActivist 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? CocoaPuff27
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo

Proposed Edits

 * My assumption is that you got a new article?
 * There's a lot of good information in the Lead section of the article that can be expanded upon in multiple headings and subheadings. You may want to start from what's stated there.
 * Reorganize some of it into a chronological history heading?

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Lead has good info. Might include a sentence on the documentary made about them.
 * 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, see the next bullet
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * A bit too detailed. The section on the found children in the lead may be moved to a "Successes" heading.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Latest info is 2012, fairly good
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Maybe something on the documentary, also a section about their successes. Everything already there is good.

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?
 * Yes, and very well
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * As current as they probably can be
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Most work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * 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

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * I think so
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The information is laid out very well
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Take more out of the lead and put it in the body.