User:Danika.peters/Rachael Harder/Aammyllee 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? Danika.peters
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Rachael Harder

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * 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, under-detailed if anything.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Somewhat
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, there is not a lot about Harder's campaign, only her pro-life stance. This also makes the article look biased.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Not always, some is biased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The "Criticism of Alberta Public School Teachers" section is written as though teachers are spewing misleading information to students.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The Abortion standpoint topic is overrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another? It seems to sway towards the conservative side.

Sources and References
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
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Some do, 3 of them are broken links or say there are missing parts.

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? Somewhat

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? It could still use more relevant information regarding Harder's electoral campaign. However, what was added was strong information that was backed up by reliable primary sources.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Great sources used, the content does make it a bit more personal but that isn't necessarily a bad thing at all! It can be hard to find specific candidate information.
 * How can the content added be improved? By adding more things that are relevant to Harder's political achievements, the bills she has worked on, the work she does in the community etc..

Overall evaluation 13/19
There could have. been a lot more information added that pertains to the election, especially when we've just had a federal one. Digging deeper and finding out more about Harder's political goals, her promises, the reform she wants to implement etc could have made this article much stronger than it already is. However, knowing the challenges of actually finding that kind of relevant information, there is something to be said for the great work that was done here. Adding in information on sensitive topics like Abortion is not an easy feat, what was added was relevant and up to date while backed with fantastic sources.