User:Elleaufrere/Alice Allison Dunnigan/Cdaless1 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)
 * Elleaufrere
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Alice Allison Dunnigan

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Updates are currently in the early life section/later article sections
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, opening sentence is good
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Lead seems more like a list of facts about Dunnigan than an outline/introduction to the sections of the article
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Lead could be made more focused and used less as a list of information (the information will follow in the body of the article) and more as an overview of what is to come

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, content is relevant and detailed
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, includes her updated annotated biography
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All content is relevant and her life is covered in detail

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, article is neutral
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article comes off as informative and factual, not persuasive

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are reliable sources listed, but citations have not yet been incorporated into the body of the new writing
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are thorough
 * Are the sources current?
 * Mostly yes, a couple have been archived
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Some have been archived and do not work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, there are a couple of sentences that could be made more concise or clear, but overall it is well written
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The name of the annotated biography is not italicized, but otherwise the writing is grammatically correct. I did not see any spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Early career section is not chronological. Reorganizing it might help with clarity of the sequence of events in her life (start with her intro to journalism, then teaching, then government work)
 * I like splitting up her career into more than one section; in the original article it is very long. You could also try doing one heading of "career" and then subheadings to divide the stages of her career.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No images yet
 * 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?
 * 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?