User:Journee Williams/Fraser syndrome/Sswartout13 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)
 * Journee Williams
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Journee Williams/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead is good and she has no plans to change anything for the lead
 * 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
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes changing organization and adding missing citations will just make the page better overall.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Some of the citations adding in is pretty old but that was from what the previous user didn't cite.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It does deal with a certain population with sort of defect.

Content evaluation
The content itself can use better organization and give a sneak peak into what the sub sections are going to talk about. Also better organization as she plans to do will help the layout.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There isn't really a viewpoint in the case they are just stating facts.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No she is simply just bettering the article for better organization.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, the tone and balance can be improved in the main article and I believe that is her goal as she better organizes the article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are missing sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources that are there are reliable.
 * Are the sources current?
 * They are fairly current
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Journee plans on to add the missing sources to the page so she is on the right track.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is not added yet put the plan seems concise and useful to this article
 * 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?
 * I suppose once journée goes into the article and reorganizes it then the article will be better.

Organization evaluation
Organization on article needs work but that is her plan to do that.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * They are sum what well captioned and give a good sense of what you should get out of them
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way
 * Yes

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 infoboxes, 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?
 * Yes the added content will improve the overall flow of the article and better expand the abilities of this article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content added will be giving more assurance to the reader because there will be liable sources. Also it will be easier to read after it is organized.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * For some of the sub sections I feel like they are very chunky and you could concise them.

Overall evaluation
Overall its hard for me to imagine what you will add to this article by just giving me the things you are going to do instead of showing me the changes. But I think that the changes you plan on making are going to be great additions to the article.