User:Jfhennessy98/Gender pay gap/Mattmgc 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)
 * Jfhennessy98
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Jfhennessy98/sandbox

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, but It doesnt refer to the topic but It is relevant to the information provided
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, but again it doesnt mention Gender Pay Gap
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Possible, it's very wordy and doesn't exactly match the Lead's title

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes it is
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes the sources are up to date but based in historical data
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not to my knowledge

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes it is
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No I dont think so
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Just the lack of linkage to the topic
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, I think its just historically informative

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes it is
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes they are. There is a variety of credible sources
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes they are
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes they do

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, its very content dense with information that is backed by research.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I can see
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes it is, but again i cant see its identifiable linkage to the Gender Pay Gap in the title

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are no images
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There are no captions
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There are no images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There are 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?
 * The article has many sources that are academic, credible, and relevant
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * As someone who is admittedly not an expert, I believe it does
 * 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, but no info boxes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes it does

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I think this article is a great start and hits many of these wickets
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Its well researched, properly sourced, provides many relevant sources that are academic and broad based, and links other relevant wikipedia pages
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Linking the headers to the relevant topic at hand

Overall evaluation
Great draft! I think you do a great job at giving the historical input on these issues. I suppose I have a few questions about the format. In your published work, are you planning on targeting just this specific time period? If not, then maybe it's a good idea to write down the other periods that affected the Gender Wage Gap. Also, I think it would be a good idea to put the title of the topic in your headers. As they are now, you just have the title of the periods, but maybe you could connote how the period affected the Gender Wage Gap in the headers. Otherwise, your edits seemed unbiased and objective. Great job.