User:Footballjz32/League of United Latin American Citizens/GamersRightsActivist 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? Footballjz32
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: League of United Latin American Citizens

Proposed Edits

 * I assume this is a new article?
 * The lead is an absolute mess. It's got very little information, trails off at the end, and includes half a block quote? Probably the first place you should start.
 * The Philosophy heading seems pretty good so far. You probably won't have to do much there.
 * The Founders subheading under history could be expanded with the history of them, who supported them, their important works, etc.
 * I'm not sure "Geography" is the best name for the heading, but I'm very uncertain about that.
 * the Subsidiaries subheading could be expanded.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * There's some good new content here.
 * 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, it touches on philosophy and history
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It's all generally there. The second paragraph in the lead should probably have citations however
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * If you removed the quote at the end of the second paragraph in the Lead (and maybe moved it into the body), it would be perfect.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * no

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?
 * No, and I added citation needed tags where i felt they were needed. This is probably what should be focused on the most.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * citation 16 (google books link to HIspanophobia) doesn't work. the rest seem fine

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes
 * 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?
 * yes it is. I like that "recent efforts" is under the history tab. very well organized

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, but the additions seem minor
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It further elaborates on what the ORG does
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More citations, also maybe add a "Tactics" heading? or focus more on that