User:Haley McDaniel/Keysmash/SarahAnnieShaw 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? Haley McDaniel
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Haley McDaniel/Keysmash

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, definitely.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is very concise and easily read.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Very up-to-date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, it reads in a neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Nope.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I do not believe that it does.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes.
 * 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.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I could see.
 * 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?
 * Definitely.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I believe so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * It is at the very bottom of the article, so no. I think if it was at the top of the article it would be better.

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?
 * It is not exhaustive but it seems to represent some literature on the subject. (I wouldn't think there would be much literature available.) (I did find this: https://dspace.cuni.cz/bitstream/handle/20.500.11956/23827/BPTX_2007_2_11410_OSZD001_84940_0_57163.pdf?sequence=1 where in page 13 it mentions Keysmashes, but not certain if that is helpful at all.)
 * 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?
 * Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes. It links to Stan Twitter and LGBTQ+. (Side note: I didn't realize that I had TWO Wikipedia pages made about me.)

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, it is more complete. It did not exist prior.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It details what a keysmash is, how it is used, and the history of the keysmash.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I honestly think just fleshing it out more is the only way to improve it. This is a very solid start.

Overall evaluation
I love the design of this article and it seems very detailed for something that was just started. It reads like a 'real' article and is set up nice. Great start!