User:Jordan Stawinski/Kirsty Duncan/NRomard Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Jordan Stawinski
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jordan Stawinski/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Yes, it has.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, it does.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes, it does.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No, it does not.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is perfectly concise.

Lead evaluation
You have done a great job updating the lead. I appreciate the current information you have added and commend you for catching that bit about her current role at the University of Toronto. Your lead is concise and well written. Good work.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, it is relevant and important information.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, you have done a nice job offering the most current information.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

No, I believe that all of your additions are important, well-supported, and relevant to your subject.

Content evaluation
I think you have really succeeded in adding information which improves the original article not just in terms of supplementing already established points, but by adding new, valuable insights. Your contributions to Kristy Duncan's career both within politics and outside of politics are great additions. Your insights beneficial to the article - they are in no way excessive, irrelevant, or unnecessary. I appreciate each of these additions you've made.

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, none whatsoever.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I don't believe that to be the case at all.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, the content is nonpartisan and unbiased - strictly informative.

Tone and balance evaluation
Again, I think your tone is ideal for an article of this nature. Completely neutral with no signs of partisanship whatsoever. I can tell that this is something you were conscious of in your writing and I commend you for it. Really great work.

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, the sources are thorough.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes, you did a great job of updating this article with current sources.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

I clicked a number of links without issue.

Sources and references evaluation
Similar to my previous evaluations which praised your content and tone, I think you have done an excellent job of choosing sources which add valuable insights to your article, without developing any sort of partisan tone. Your sources are updated, relevant, and active (as far as I can tell). I also appreciate you adding the necessary sources for the uncited information in the original article. Great job.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, it is very well written.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

The one small spelling error I found appeared in the first line of your fourth paragraph under Political Career which states "Duncan's priority as Minister of Scienc was..."


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, you have done a great job organizing your information and displaying it chronologically within the sections.

Organization evaluation
You have done an excellent job formatting your article. Save for this one minor spelling error, your content is written with perfect spelling and grammar. I appreciate how you thoughtfully crafted each section. Very well done.

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

Images and media evaluation
There have been no image or media additions to your article because none were necessary.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Absolutely. As it currently stands, Kristy Duncan's article leaves much do be desired. I think you have done an excellent job elaborating on and supplementing existing material as well as adding new information that only further improves the article.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

As previously stated, I think this article left much to be desired - especially considering the impressive resume of this individual. I think you have really succeeded in improving the substance of this article by adding valuable insights about Duncan's background, platform, achievements, and ambitions.


 * How can the content added be improved?

Save for the minor spelling error which I previously acknowledged, I think that your additions to this article are of nothing but benefit. It is apparent that your information was diligently gathered and thoughtfully expressed. I appreciate the additions you have made to this article. You've done a great job.

Overall evaluation
Jordan,

You have done a terrific job with this assignment. Your hard work is reflected in the many great improvements you have made to this article. Starting in the lead section where you offered an important fix to some inaccurate and/or outdated information, to the terrific contributions you made within the body of this article, this article has really benefitted from all of your additions. Great job maintaining a neutral tone and balanced viewpoints. Great job utilizing many strong sources. And great job delivering all of this information in a well-formatted, well-written way.

Job well done, Jordan!

Noah.