User:Edgar2410/Office administration/Ixamaris Cruz 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?  https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/Edgar2410
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Edgar2410/Office administration

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
Some Peer content is reflected in the article. His sandbox does not have the entire article, only the information that he searched for (only definition of "Office Administration" and "Office Administrator"). In this case, the introduction from his information is a clear definition of what is office administration, and how it is called the person who do this profession. I was reading the article and I have not seen the entire information in the main article, so that means that my peer did not published a big part of data that was searched. However, the data that he was able to include was precise.

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
His content is definitely relevant to the topic, and is up-to-date. As I mentioned before, my Peer did a good research but the whole data was not included completely in the article, and I still don't understand why. They were good opportunities for a bigger development and essential details such as: What does someone needs to become an office administrator, its demand, types of office administrators, salary etc. These data was not developed in the Draft. My Peer did a great job describing the office administrator function.

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 small portion of content added was neutral, he followed the rules and summaries the main definition perfectly. None of the viewpoint had a personal opinion or perspective that could affect the way of exposure. None of the content have the intention of persuading the reader, there is no existent point of view to start persuading.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
I was taking a look to the current sources used to the development of this article, and there was a lot of essential information to use. As I mentioned in my analysis of Content, all the data that I suggested was able in the sources, which it is a necessary component to complete the article. The sources that I was able to find (at least the last that were used) are pages for finding jobs about administration, which means they still current. The sources are good, even though some of them do not have an author, they are just under the name of the web promoting job. Honestly, I do not know if is correct using a web like this as a source, but personally, it does not seems professional and trustworthy for a reader that is interested on literature and reputable authors specialized in the field.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The small portion added in the article was well written, excluding one mistake related to indefinite article in a vowel noun. For example, the mistake was "To be a office Administrator..." instead of "an". In general, there was no other notable mistake, everything was decently written, well organized (without including the lack of information) and there were reflected some of the general points of what Office Administration is.

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?

Images and media evaluation
The Article have two images enhanced to the article and they are clearly understood, well captioned, and adhere to Wikipedia regulations. The images are appealing and not overwhelming.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Honestly, the article is short and does not have a detailed description of many topics, which is essential for a general article like this one. My Peer did a good job searching for some sources with important data that may help to complete the Article, but it wasn't reflected on the article. Overall, this Article needs to be completed with more citations, references, literature, details, and requires more concepts.