User:Hkratz42/Alaska Conservation Foundation/TheMarshMan907 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? Hkratz42
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Alaska Conservation Foundation

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

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * All is up to date and current
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There could possibly be more info in some areas like the "Mission" and "Organization" sections
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No biased claims
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Some sections may be a bit underrepresented
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No persuasion is noticeable, it is strictly informative

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 they are
 * Are the sources current?
 * They are a bit dated
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * 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?
 * It is clear and concise, but could have more information and content
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It is very well organized

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * 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?
 * Yes it does
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * There are a decent amount of sources for the information, not exhaustive
 * 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?
 * It does
 * 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?
 * Yes, it gives more information on the topic, but could have more content
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It provides solid info regarding the topic
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More information and content can be added to better the article and provide further understanding on the topic