User:Edgar2410/Office administration/WAR2020UPRC 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)
 * Edagr2410
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the lead has been updated to reflect the new content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead include an introductory sentence that describe concisely and clearly the article topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, this article doesn't provide a brief description of the article major section. The lead just give you information of what an office administrator does and there purpose on a company.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all the lead information is included in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead it is detailed, but not overly. The author doesn't maintain a neutral tone in the lead and that is something that matters when you are writing in a lead section. Example, "the success of any company depends on how they organize and control office administration and keep everything checked". First, he is presenting his opinion, and second, this doesn't give a good overview of the article. Usually, the first lead section states the most important information, and this isn't the case.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all the content added it is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, all the content added up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, the article doesn't have any missing content or content that doesn't belong. Although, I will add a section of how many they win in the different states of the United States.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, this article doesn't deal with any Wikipedia equity gaps or historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * No, they are parts that the author insert his opinion in an unintentional way.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, they are not claims heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, this isn't the case in this article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content added doesn't attempt to persuade the reader in any favor.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * I couldn't find any type of bibliography, but they were some sources on the article and they were reliable secondary sources of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No, the sources brings complete with regard to every detail.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No, the sources of this article aren't current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Some of this pages doesn't give information of whom are the authors, but they are pages that are written by one author.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * No, they are some link that doesn't open or show that it has been a problem with the page, I try opened it by different devices.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content added it is concise clear and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, the content doesn't have any spelling errors, but it has minimum grammatical errors, like punctuation in compound/ complex sentences, word choice and determiner use of (a/an/the/this).
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the content added it is well organized and broken down into sections.

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?
 * Yes, it really improves the article in so many ways. You can see the difference from the original article, this give a more complete lead section and more grasp about what the article is about. The lead section cultivate interest in reading on, it is clear and accessible, but the article is not neutral.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The editor brings more information to the sections and that it is important in this type of article, because people want to know what a job is really about without missing any point.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content that is added it is great, what should be improved is to keep a neutral tone on the article.