User:Juliettelm/Skims/Fuller2019 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Juliettelm


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Juliettelm/Skims?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Does not exist yet.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, but maybe also add that Skims collaborates with other companies in the lead because that it a decent part of the article you wrote.
 * 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? Could do better at this, again should talk about the collaborations
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, but I would consider getting rid of the quote from Kim.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes all of the content is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Should find more about the leadership and maybe who designs things for the company. I think you should also be able to find more detailed stuff around what they offer and how much it costs. In the collaboration portion you could talk about what people are promoting the brand.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It does not address any of these.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Kind of.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes in the history you should not say how successful it is. "immense success" and "incredibly successful" are biased.
 * 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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, there could be more details about the money but might be hard to find because they are not public.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) No
 * 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? Not that I could see
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is no picture and one should be added.
 * Are images well-captioned? No picture
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No picture
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No picture

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? There are 6 sources. One is repeated and needs to be fixed.
 * 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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Yes
 * How can the content added be improved? There should definitely be a picture added as well as more detail in the company structure and economics.