User:Fraj0103/Salma Zahid/Kate.healy 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 I am reviewing: Fraj0103
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Fraj0103/Salma Zahid

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * no, lead should reflect content of 2019 election.
 * 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, minus the missing 2019 content
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * very concise and well done

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes, content reflects important aspect of politician's life.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes, content includes recent information
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * missing: table of 2019 election results

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * not to my knowledge
 * 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?
 * yes, sources are very well done and are reliable.
 * all added content is effectively supported by citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes, sources reflect all available information on the politician.
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes
 * 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?
 * yes, peer has done a very good job writing the article.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * not to my knowledge
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes, image is from Wikipedia image bank
 * 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?
 * 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, article has been updated very well and is much more complete with the new content.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * content added includes information about 2019 election, which is very important on the page of a politician
 * content is now effectively backed up by sources, whereas original article lacked many citations
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * adding brief content of 2019 election in Lead and adding table to show 2019 election results