User:Crazy326459/Criticism of democracy/Monkeybomber Peer Review

Peer review[edit]
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username): Monkeybomber
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Monkeybomber/sandbox

Lead[edit]
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?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation[edit]
There is a good clear lead, good organization, and a clear line of logic in this Talk page post.

Content[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content 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?

Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? For the most part, yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? A little, but this is just for a Talk page.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I would not call it persuasive necessarily.

Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation[edit]
Good work with using outside sources!

Organization[edit]
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?

Organization evaluation[edit]
N/A

Images and Media[edit]
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?

Images and media evaluation[edit]
N/A

Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content in the Talk page Contributions definitely would improve the quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think that their Talk page showed an interesting alternative viewpoint that may have not otherwise been considered.
 * How can the content added be improved? Sadly I couldn't find the sandbox draft!

Overall evaluation[edit]
I can't find anything in the sandbox draft! I think that I found some of your work through a Contributions link on a Talk page, which looks good! It sounds like you know your stuff and have some valuable insights.