User:KStanfo/Multiple Jeopardy/Pv2020 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? KStanfo
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:KStanfo/Multiple Jeopardy

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The original article did not have a concise lead section; it was multiple paragraphs long and ventured into the differences between Multiple Jeopardy and Double Jeopardy. KStanfo's improved article has a distinct, concise lead section which specifically discusses the definition of Multiple Jeopardy and provides a brief overview of what is discussed in the remainder of the article. They were able to salvage content from the original article by putting information into a new section: "Difference from double jeopardy".

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant to the topic and makes the article more comprehensive.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content of KStanfo's draft is written in a neutral voice. This was achieved partly by removing persuasive language and the original author's voice from the existing article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
KStanfo added one new source to the article (Greenman, Emily 2008). The latest source in this article is from 2009; I believe that the article could be improved by finding more recent sources (published within the last 5 years). Additionally, I noticed that one source (Collins, Patricia Hill 2000) is listed as a reference twice (reference numbers 4 and 6). Instead, it should be listed once and referred to multiple times.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The original article was overly wordy and contained various block quotes which made the article difficult to follow. KStanfo's draft is concise, well-organized, and easy to read.

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


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images in this article.

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?

New Article Evaluation
This is not a new article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The content added, and removed, has significantly improved the readability of this article. Specifically, the addition of clear explanations and examples of both Double Jeopardy and Multiple Jeopardy makes the content easy to understand. While the original article referred to this information, it did not have clear and concise examples. To further strengthen this article, it may be beneficial to include a section of related Wikipedia articles/topics to follow up with. Additionally, it might be helpful to find examples of Multiple Jeopardy with other minorities, and to include those in a separate section.