User:Eddyd101/Artificial intelligence in hiring/Imakespaghetti29 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? Eddyd101
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Link

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?

Lead evaluation: The Lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer, and includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The Lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections and does not include information that is not present in the article. The Lead is concise and not overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * 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?

Content evaluation: The content added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. From my understanding of the topic, there is no content that does not belong. The article does not deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps and does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation: The content added is neutral and does not appear heavily biased toward a particular position. No viewpoints are under or overrepresented and the content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

Sources and references evaluation: Yes, all new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The sources added yet are thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic. The sources are current and written by a diverse spectrum of authors. They do include historically marginalized individuals when possible. I checked 5 links, and they work fine!
 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * 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?

Organization
Guiding questions:

Organization evaluation: The content added is well-written and is concise, clear and easy to read. The content does not have any grammatical or spelling errors. The content is well-organized and is broken down into sections that reflect the major points on the topic.
 * 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?

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

Images and media evaluation: No images have been added.
 * 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.

New Article Evaluation: I am not sure if this draft is a new article; but I am assuming more sources need to be added before we can assess Notability and other criteria. The article does link to other articles so it is more discoverable.
 * 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:

Overall evaluation: Overall, the content added does improve the quality of the article and makes the article more complete. The strength of the content is the clarity and detail of the major sections that really helped my understanding of a new topic. To improve the content added, maybe the author could consider adding more sections, sources and images.
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?