User:Jstnbxtr/Interdependence theory/Bethannecamp74 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? Jstnbxter
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jstnbxtr/Interdependence theory

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes- It is a brand new article.
 * 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- the lead does a great introduction, but fails to mention Four Basic Assumptions.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Did not include the Four Basic Assumptions of Interdependency Theory that is the dominant part of the article in the Lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes- original article by Jstnbxter
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does not include information relating to assumptions which is a major part of the article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, but does not mention other view points or contradictory information.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No- the information presented seems to have a text-book feel.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Opportunity section does not have a reference.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes- expansive reference list.
 * Are the sources current? Most are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

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? None noted
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes. Content is broken down to easy to understand format.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no image included.
 * 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? Very expansive.
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes- includes several article links.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes- the article explains the Interdependency theory.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Concise, easy to read, detailed by not overwhelming to read, source based information.
 * How can the content added be improved? Several quotes that had a [] reference, but not credit to original author in text. Mention the Four Basic Assumptions of Interdependency Theory that is the dominant part of the article in the Lead.

Overall evaluation
The article is better than many on Wikipedia as it was concise and unbiased while informational and easy to read without trying to incorporate too many areas that are auxiliary.