User:GamersRightsActivist/Mexican American Political Association/Briannamck8 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? (provide username)
 * GamersRightsActivist
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Mexican American Political Association

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?
 * Yes, although the second sentence could be made more clear
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It only gives a definition of the organization rather than a summary of the article
 * 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 very concise. It could have a bit more information if needed

Lead evaluation
Good

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * It is hard to see what has been added. It seems as though the edits have mostly been adding sources and reworking where things are positioned in the article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The structure and tactics sections could be expanded upon as they do not have a lot of information in the sections.

Content evaluation
Needs development

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 over represented, or underrepresented?
 * There could be more viewpoints from people involved with the organization
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
Good

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Some sources are missing from either information that was added or their previously
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Could have a broader array of sources
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Needs development

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?
 * List of presidents could be moved to the end

Organization evaluation
Good

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?

Images and media evaluation
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?
 * 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?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The article still needs more work and expansion.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * There was mostly sources added
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The sections are all still relatively undeveloped. There could also be images added to the source to make it more visually appealing.

Overall evaluation
Good, but needs more development.