User:Crweidman/Chemical safety/Kalewis6 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? (Crweidman)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Chemical safety

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The Lead has not been updated
 * 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, the Lead contains a brief summary of the article
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No the lead contains information present in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? the Lead is sufficiently detailed

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? All content is relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? This article is up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All content is sufficient
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This article has no equity gaps

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? the content is from a neutral standpoint
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? the content is from a neutral standpoint
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? the content is from a neutral standpoint
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? the content is from a neutral standpoint

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All sources are reliable
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are thorough
 * Are the sources current? The sources are relevant to the date
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources are not diverse
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All links work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is easy to read
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No spelling errors present
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is digestible

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article is informative
 * Are images well-captioned? No images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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 the article is more complete
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The grammar was significantly improved
 * How can the content added be improved? Less wordiness