User:Kate.healy/Karine Trudel/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? Kate.healy
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kate.healy/Karine Trudel

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, but the previous version was already good.
 * 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 still fairly short, so this is not really 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

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it includes Trudel's defeat in 2019
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It all seems relevant, and significantly expands upon what was there previously.

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, it sticks to the facts

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? 3 out of 5 sources are good. One appears to be from campaign material, but I couldn't access that link to say for sure. Another one references another Wikipedia article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are a variety of different sources that cover different aspects of the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All but one.

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? I found one spelling error. Also, citations should go after the period. Everything else was great.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it follows a logical order that is consistent with other biographies on Wikipedia.

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


 * 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 looks far better than it used to.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is much more complete and paints a picture of Trudel as an actual person rather than a list of election results.
 * How can the content added be improved? It could have used more sources, maybe news articles or hansard, but I know this user is doing a number of different articles so I'm not inclined to be picky about that! She's already going above and beyond.

Overall evaluation
Excellent article, good research, well-written and organized. Only minor spelling/grammatical issues, otherwise great job!