User:ENBerg15/1970s in sociology/Lorenzdb 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? (provide username)   ENBerg15
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? In a sense yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It coves the general sense of the article, but not a specific explanation.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, it only includes a simple sentence that introduces the information.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, not really.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Not in relevant information, just in sources, it has good structure, but no major detail.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Ina way, but overall, doesn't provide overall detail and description.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, several areas where there is no observational information and not overall overview.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Sort, not too much detailed content.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not really.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, not enough detail.
 * 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? Yes, there are plenty plot points and links to sources and people.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Not really, not enough information.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, they are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yeah, they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No, not enough observation and overview.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, not enough.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, well organized into subsections and sections, even with headings.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? n/a
 * Are images well-captioned? n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

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? Yes, it does.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? It's plenty of sources, just not enough detail.
 * 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? Yes, plenty section headings and subheadings.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No, not really.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? No, it needs more information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? the sources and the links.
 * How can the content added be improved? It can geta well written synopsis of information about the article and it will be good.