User:Kassidystevens/Eva Nassif/Marciewallace27 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) Kassidystevens
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kassidystevens/Eva Nassif

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No but it is adequate as is, so that's fine.
 * 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, but the article is fairly short, so it isn't necessary.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise and on-topic.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it includes information on events from this year.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, it is all relevant.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, it is very objective and sticks to the facts, even in a section about a controversial issue, which is especially commendable.
 * 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, it simply states what happened.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I think so. Some of the sentences are missing a citation, but they are not ones that Kassidy added.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They are from a variety of sources that cover different aspects of the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, she has updated the references to include more recent articles.
 * 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, the parts that Kassidy wrote are clearly more carefully written than what was added by other contributors.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Only a few minor ones.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it was originally sort of all blobbed together, but Kassidy broke it into logical sections.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media - N/A no images


 * 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. - N/A not a new article'''


 * 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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, it is now more comprehensive, organized, and better-cited.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? She was fighting an uphill battle because somebody else kept updating the article throughout the semester, and she has done a good job working around that.
 * How can the content added be improved? The old and new content could be more smoothly integrated, but as previously mentioned, she did a good job considering that somebody else kept coming in and changing things.