User:Gwhoriskey/1990s in sociology/ENBerg15 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) Bmegan and Gwhoriskey
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: 1990s in sociology

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes, the lead has been updated and it reflects the new content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes; there is a short one-sentence introductory sentence that describes the 1990's in sociology.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes; each year for the 1990's contains the sociological events of that year.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes, but overall still brief information
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise; gives the important facts and small descriptions of those facts

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes; all new content is relevant to topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes; everything is up-to-date currently.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Nothing is noticeably missing and everything belongs.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? All content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no; no biased claims
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No; all viewpoints are equally represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No; no persuasion is used in the article, just facts.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes; all content is cited and sourced.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes; they give the information needed to reflect the topic.
 * Are the sources current? yes, all sources are current
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes; all checked links worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes; concise, clear and easy to read; gives the basic information needed and a brief explanation.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes; the whole article is well-organized and really easy to follow; maybe make list chronological within each year?

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No; no images
 * Are images well-captioned? no images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? no images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no images

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? not a new article*
 * 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; they added more information and sources and citations for all new information and overall improved the quality with more information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? There are citations and sources for all the information listed in the article, and good organization within the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? Maybe add a little more information and add some pictures to the article.