User:Glory30/Shyness/PaulaUPRC 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) Glory 30
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Glory30/Shyness

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer. The Lead has a good and strong introductory sentence that clearly describes the articles topic it also includes a brief description of all the article's major sections. I didn't find anything that is not about the articles topic or that is not later presented on the article. The Lead is concise. There are 2 errors in punctuations because of spacing.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant to the topic. The content added is up-to-date. I couldn't find any content that was missing or that should be included in the article. This article doesn't deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added seems neutral, the reader shouldn't feel in a position to be in favor of one position or away from another. There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The sources are currently available, they were written; 2 sources by 2018 and 1 source by 2019. the three links are available and they work perfectly.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content is clear and easy to read. The content has grammatical or spelling errors, it does have a few punctuantion errors. The article is well broken down into sections. About the organization, after the paragraph of 'benefits" there is a blank until the references, that blanked should be erased.

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
There is no images added. I think there is no need to put image in this article.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The content added has provided a good overall quality of the article; although, some punctuation errors should be corrected. The article feels more complete and easy read for however is reading this article. There is a type of plagiarism that it should be worked on in reference [2] because its the exact same definition. The strengths of the context added its seen at the Lead section. I think the Shyness article can be improved in the social versus behavioral inhibition, that is a good what to finish improving the User:Glory30/Shyness article.