User:Jasonc3/Agency (sociology)/Skaswinkel 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) User:Jasonc3, User:Ceedeeh11
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Agency (sociology)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, it has been updated to reflect the added content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, it does include a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes, the content is acquired from relevant, up-to-date resources.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, there is no content that is missing nor content that does not belong.

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, the claims are not biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, the viewpoints are equally represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content does not attempt to persuade the reader. The content is factual.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the added content is backed up through reliable secondary sources of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links are not clickable in the sandbox version of the draft as the sandbox version of the draft is not formatted properly.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content is well-written, concise, and clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No the content does not contain 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 content has been added to all relevant sections of the article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * N/A
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

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?
 * N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * N/A
 * 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?
 * N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the content added has improved the overall completeness and quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content added were that all content added touched on important aspects and subtopics of agency, expounding information in a concise manner that improved the overall quality of the article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content added could be further improved by adding additional sources of information to support the facts and evidence set forth.

Overall evaluation

 * The content added does a good job at straightforwardly presenting the new information in a way that improves the overall quality.
 * The tone and balance of the content added remain consistent with the article.
 * When further editing the article, continue to make sure that you effectively back up the content with reliable sources of information.