User:Kaylee Bowman/Rosemarie Falk/CDseitz Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Kaylee Bowman
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kaylee Bowman/Rosemarie Falk

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * 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? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, not particularly.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the way that the information is portrayed has a neutral non-biased undertone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, 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, but not exactly sure what a secondary source is?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * 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? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. Personal Life, Political Career, Political Views, Controversy

Images and Media- no images included
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?

For New Articles Only- not a new article
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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Absolutely
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of this article were that Rosemarie Falks political career and views were added as they were lacking in her original page.
 * How can the content added be improved? Include more information on activities outside of politics.

Overall evaluation-
==== Overall the research was done very well. There were a fair amount of references and the information was well put together. My only critique would be that sources other then news or magazine articles should be included ex. peer- reviewed papers or books if available. ====

~CDseitz