User:Jyumanzor/Leila Birhaji/Aschmidbauer 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)
 * Jyumanzor
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Jyumanzor/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * N/A, starting 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?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's a little long adding in details that will be clarified later on, but overall good.

Lead evaluation
It's good, I would say maybe tie the first sentence to the rest however, I was a little confused about the first sentence.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, has content up to 2020
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Rewards has not been filled in yet, but there is very good information otherwise
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, it is a page for a notable woman who had not had a page prior/had had her page deleted.

Content evaluation
Content is well related to her and very up to date.

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?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is very unbiased, just presenting information on the topic.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are sections without citations at the end of them
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Most of them are written by who the article is about, one is not. I would say maybe look for more articles not by her?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Just make sure to add citations to the ends of the paragraphs, and maybe look for more sources not by who the article is about if possible.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * For the most part, the last paragraph is very confusing however
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Her name is spelled wrong (?) in the introduction. Other than that not that I have noticed, just again the last paragraph
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
Topics are good, just make sure to add the Big Wikipedia Headings so that there can be the box at the top to jump to them/make the headings pop out more.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * There are good sources, maybe just look for more not by her.
 * 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?
 * I think it's good, again just add the Headings and maybe an image with notable information underneath but other than that I think it has good content.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * No, but this would probably be like a last step anyways

New Article Evaluation
Good content especially for not having an article prior, again organization wise make sure to make Big Headers but the content is good.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * N/A kinda, but the content is good to create the article
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The information reflects her accomplishments, and I especially like how the opening gives a very good summary of who she is.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Maybe split up paragraphs a bit more, a little dense. Other than that, good content.

Overall evaluation
A good article! Again I'd say it might be good to split it up more paragraph-wise for readability/maybe shorten a few parts to make it easier to read, and fix the formatting to make it more like Wikipedia-esque. Other than that good!