User:Emilyngu3/Mighty-O Donuts/Fuller2019 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

emilyngu3


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Emilyngu3/Mighty-O Donuts


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Mighty-O Donuts

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, before all of the info was in the lead. I think the second paragraph should be put somewhere else though.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The second paragraph should be somewhere else and the park-let should be explained more.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? it is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? They did not add much information, but did reorganize it so it makes more sense.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? There may be more information about other recognitions or other organizations they are supporting.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't understand what a park-let is or how it supports their mission so you should expand on that. You should also mention if the shops sell anything besides donuts.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It talked about what they are doing to support non-profits.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * 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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There should be a source for the founding information.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? Yes they are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The organization of the article is much more clear and easy to read compared to the original.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No there was not much added in terms of content.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is broken down into sections that make sense.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There was no pictures added, but could use a picture of a donut or other things that they sell.
 * Are images well-captioned? There is no caption on the picture that is there now.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes overall the article has improved because it is much more organized, but there was not much new information added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The locations were definitely important addition.
 * How can the content added be improved? There should be more details on the non-profit organizations they are supporting and the park-let they are developing.