User:Ixamaris Cruz/Design/WAR2020UPRC 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)
 * Ixamaris Cruz
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Ixamaris Cruz/Design

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead section hasn't been updated. Although, is a lead section that isn't necessary update, it is complete.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead section includes a concisely and clear description of the article topics.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the lead section give you a brie section of the article topics.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Everything that is on the lead section it is present on the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise, it contains a description of what you are going to find on the article, it doesn't proliferate the lead section with a lot of information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all the content added to the topic is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content that added to the article is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, there isn't content missing or content that does not belong. Everything in this article is accurate, there isn't missing any content.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * This article doesn't deal with one of wikipedia equity gaps and doesn't address topics related to underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, they aren't claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, they aren't viewpoints overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, in this article they don't try to persuade the reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The new content is backed up by secondary reliable sources.
 * 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?

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?
 * Yes, the article is well organized, has a clear structure

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?

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 info boxes, 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?
 * Before the content was improved the article was already a good article. But with this need content the article is more complete than the original that Wikipedia has.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the added content is original, actionable, concise and is formatted properly.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content can be improved in grammar, but the content added is perfect. It is break down in sections that are clear, precisely and easy to understand and read.