User:Cquinn1112/Comments section/Arielpaige17 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? (Cquinn1112)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Comments section

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * 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? no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise - could possibly use an update including more detail of whats provided in the article

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes, it flows with the rest of the article
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes, there is no bias present or questionable words that would mislead the interpretation
 * 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? sources have been added for new content
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes they direct me to the source

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes, the revisions are clear. If anything, the editor went over and fixed previous grammatical errors to make the overall article easier to read and comprehend.
 * 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, each section of the article is divided up by topic and by specific points.

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?
 * 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? Yes, i feel as if with the following revisions and additions, the article is more cohesive and flows much better.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? With the removal of grammatical errors and correcting sentence structures, the piece is much more complete.
 * How can the content added be improved? Possibly add onto the lead to encompass what the article will feature. Under 'types" section, possibly consider breaking down the two types into two individual sub-headings

Overall evaluation
very successful article. Little adjustments or changes need to be addressed.