User:Fififofum96/Emma González/Dublinmay123 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

 * Fififofum96 (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Emma González

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No content has been added to the lead
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the topic explains why Emma became an activist in the first place and the group she founded, Never Again MSD.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead only explains what group Emma founded. I felt that the rest of the article had some great information about Emma's actions against gun violence but it wasn't outlined in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is basic and to the point. I do wish there was some more detail outlining how the rest of the article will be.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. The user added information about Emma collaborating with other anti-gun activist.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I feel that the content in the article so far is great. The user made a suggestion about linking twitter which I think would be very useful. Emma's popularity exploded on twitter so it would be an excellent source to understand how Emma connects with her audience.
 * Content evaluation

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content added was neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? My concerns with the article are in the conspiracy theories and Steve King. The conspiracy theories have accusations against politicians that may not be entirely true.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I feel that her personal life is underrepresented but that could also be due to the fact that she is still young.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Only one piece of content has a linked source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I wish there was more explanation to Emma's collaboration with other anti-gun activist.
 * Are the sources current? Yes the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Content was clear and easy to follow.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I liked how the each type of content was organized. But I did think that the Steven Kings section was a bit random being on its own.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, pictures of Emma at the rallys and protest were posted.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

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?Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The list of sources is quite long. From what I've read through the source represent what is written in the article.
 * 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? Yes. It had several section headings.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, under each header links to other articles such as Never Again MSD and 2018 United States gun violence protest were linked.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes. I like the direction the user is going. I would like to see more detail in the subjects the user wants to post about.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? There was a lack of personal life information about Emma. By adding information about Emma's twitter and other social media handles it can help fill that void.
 * How can the content added be improved? Add more links to sources.