User:Courtneywray/Suffix/Meganmckenna1 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?
 * Courtneywray
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Suffix

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes it has been.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes it does include a good intro sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No the lead is missing a lead into the description into the article's sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the lead includes less than the information that is present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is definitely concise and makes the paper clear.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * I believe that the content is relevant and relates to suffixes as much as it can.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The references tell the reader that the content is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I do not see any content that is missing or that does not belong.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No the article does not deal with one of the equity gaps and no it does not because it is about a word not really about another subject.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes the content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I do not think that are any claims that appear biased toward any particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I do not think that there are any of either of those viewpoints that are either.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No the content is strictly informative and does not seem to persuade the reader in a favor of one position over the other one.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes all of the content has reliable sources that are reflected in the references section.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes the sources are very thorough and are seemingly a complete reflective nature of the literature that is available on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes the sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, none of the authors are the same and they all come from different histories and races.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I believe that the content is well-written and it is very clear and easy to read. (It is just a complex topic to understand).
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I can see.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes I think that the content is well-organized and very well broken into the section that reflect the major points on the topic.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are no images in the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There are no images in the article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There are no images in the article.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There are no images in the article.

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?
 * Yes it does meet those requirements.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The list of sources is not too exhaustive. I think they could have found a couple more that is also more pertinent 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?
 * Yes the article does follow the patterns of similar articles in the way that it is laid out. (Has many infoboxes and all of the headers, etc.)
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes the article links to other articles because it is such a common word.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I think the content added has improved the overall quality of the article. Yes it seems more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I think the strengths of the content include that the article has many great examples and has many great definitions of words and words related to suffix.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content that could be added is a lot more pictures or diagrams to make sure the page is more interesting to all groups of people. Also the article could include a more complex list of sources in order to hit all of the points.