User:Jellyjamjan/Chicanafuturism/Maayansofer 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? RachelSnyderman and JellyJamJan
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jellyjamjan/Chicanafuturism

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, this is a whole new topic added and there is a lead written entirely by them.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The introductory sentence tells about where the term comes from, but something that could be added is what it means and why it exists.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead could use a summary of what sections will be introduced next. The contents section does a pretty good job of doing this though.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead describes the background information necessary to understand the rest of the article. It includes information on author Ramirez, who is talked about later in the article too.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise, but some of the information could be put under an "origin" umbrella rather than general chicanafuturism section. The Lead could be more concise and broadly about chicanafuturism as a whole and give more general information about what the term even means.

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral, and seems to all be backed by reputable sources rather than opinionated.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are no heavily biased claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I am not sure if there is a counter-viewpoint that could be offered. This seems to be a very direct article about what chicanafuturism is and what it is composed of.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, there is no in favor or not. This is simply a description of the term chicanafuturism and its history.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, although whole paragraphs are cited for one source, and it is difficult to tell if there is any content that is not from the source.
 * 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? Checked the first 3 links and yes, they work.

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? No.
 * 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? 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? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I am not sure if there is more that could be added, but this seems to be a concise list with strong information (6 sources).
 * 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? There are section headings, and an infobox with an outline of subsections.
 * 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, this is an entirely new topic added to wikipedia.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content adds background, history, and current contributing authors that bring the idea of chicanafuturism together.
 * How can the content added be improved? The Lead could be more concise and some of the information can be added to a different subsection. In addition, there could be more sources added to create a more reputable page.