User:JuliaLeary/Home sign/Breannadooling 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)

JuliaLeary, Rebscar


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

User:JuliaLeary/Home sign

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

It looks like it, yes


 * 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?

Not explicitly, but I think that the sections fit in the article given the background established in the lead


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

It gives a good overview of what will be discussed in more detail in the article


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

I'd say it's concise, but effective. I think it's more engaging than the original lead and easier to follow

Lead evaluation
I think you did a very nice job with it! If you're looking to add anything, the only thing I can think of would be more of a setup for your later discussion of systems which vary across families and cultures (maybe explicitly introducing that there is not just one Home sign system), but I think as is the lead is very strong and sets up the article well.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes I think that you provided a much more productive structure and built upon the existing page with relevant details


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

It reads as relevant and up-to-date, the sources all look relatively recent as well which is good


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

I think that all your content belongs. Maybe expand upon the Morphology section a bit more if you can find additional information.

Content evaluation
Overall very good and balanced!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Everything you have reads as neutral to me


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

I didn't find this to be the case. The only phrase that stuck out to me as potentially having any bias was the note you made "as would be expected if the caregiver was the source", just with the word "expected" it might read to some as assuming a certain pre-existing understanding or view on the subject


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I don't think so. Maybe restructure the "Lexicon" subsection a bit to not initially present with a strong focus on David's Home sign, as I felt as a reader that was kind of established to be an overview section rather than continuing on with the example you were talking about earlier. I think it's worth having points about this specific system in this section, but maybe not as the opening sentence to avoid setting up the view of just this system at first, if that makes sense.


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

I didn't find this to be the case

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall I found your article to be very balanced! I think that the information is presented very factually and neutrally.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

It looks like it to me!


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

I think you had a good amount of sources that captured a wide variety of information on the topic


 * Are the sources current?

Yes the sources look relatively recent


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes they were functional for me

Sources and references evaluation
I was impressed by all the new sources you were able to bring in and the organization and implementation of sources which you brought to the page!

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Definitely yes


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

I didn't notice anything. Maybe double check if punctuation is supposed to go before or after citations, as this varied from citation to citation on the page. Other than that I think everything looks good grammatically


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

Yes the organization flows well overall. I almost feel like it might flow even better if Prominent Studies was put above Cross-Cultural Comparisons, but I also don't think this is essential to your article's effectiveness or anything

Organization evaluation
I really like the sections you've established-- I think it makes the article much more engaging and easier to read and follow than the original

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


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

Definitely more complete, much easier to read and interact with


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

The Lead is much more straightforward and background is better established with more detail through the Lead and early sections


 * How can the content added be improved?

I think what you have is really good! As I said earlier, the only thing I can really see to add to would potentially be the Morphology section if possible.

Overall evaluation
You did a really nice job with your edits and additions of this page! I think the overall flow, structure, and details are much improved and very easy to follow and understand. It reads as neutral and factual overall and seems well-supported by strong sources. Don't hesitate to reach out for clarification or follow-up questions if any of what I suggested doesn't make sense, but I think what you have is very strong as it stands!