User:Daytontalbot/Wolfe cycle/Coleman.Judd Peer Review

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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?
 * 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?

The lead section is great and it is a clear opening transition to the body of the article. It is a great outline and discusses the other sections well.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? It is completely relevant to the topic. It is a newly created article and gives great information on the matter.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The recency of publication helps it to be incredibly up to date and is based on current research and data on the topic.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content presented contains a great summary of the available literature on the subject.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No it does not.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there is significant documentation to support the information.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes it does. The content summarizes the sources well.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There is not a large amount of resources available on the content but the added resources reflect the available information well.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The topic is specialized and very narrow so there is little diversity in the authors.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) All the sources are from primary articles and have a high level of reputability.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is very well written and constructed and is quite easy to understand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? All content has been sufficiently edited and is free of grammatical and spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The organization is clear and concise and arranged in a way that is easy to understand and follow.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes they do, the graphics are quite clear and add value and help to increase understanding.
 * Are images well-captioned? They are captioned but the captions are not specific
 * 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 for 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? The article has in excess of the 2-3 reliable sources and provides a great reference point for the content.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Due to having little available, the article does a great job at including a significant amount of sources.
 * 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? It has appropriate section headings and proper formatting for wiki articles.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? It does not.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Being a new article it obviously drastically increased the quality.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? They give an in depth backing for the topic and present it in an easy to understand format.
 * How can the content added be improved? More overall content with more specific details.