User:Francescacast/Cheryl Heller/Delize78 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (Francescacast)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Francescacast/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Y es, everything is clear and well descriptive.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, each topic has brief summary about it.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Most likely, she goes in further with talking about Cheryl Heller clients.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No, everything is clear and neat

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Everything has its date, and when certain things happened.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I feel that she gave enough details to tell a story about who Cheryl Heller was.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, I love that she added lots of information.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, not that I read about.
 * 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? Yes definitely, as I was reading it made me want to read more.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most of the sources she used were up to date and good.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes it does, also she has dates and places she cited.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links are good.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? This is very well written and she goes into depth with each topic.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There were grammar errors and commas that needed to be in the right spot.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes Definitely, each of the 7 topics.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? If she added in a picture, it would have topped of the article and gave it that kick.
 * Are images well-captioned? There weren't any
 * 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? Yes, it has this in it.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? It tells each part that she's trying to emphasize.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary info boxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? I personally helped her with putting each heading and separating each paragraphs.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? As I was reading I wanted to know who this person was, Francesca did a great job in going into detail about who she was.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? She added in social innovations, her education and why Cheryl Heller went into design.
 * How can the content added be improved? The citations helped in what she was talking about.