User:Keneeso/Cannabis in Canada/Snwashing 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

 * Keneeso
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Cannabis in Canada

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 lead is very concise in its opening sentence, but could use supporting detail, such as legalization years, to improve its description of the article's topic. Otherwise, the lead is strong in describing the article's major sections and not providing information that isn't present in the article. The update by my peer is in undefined besides the fact that it includes grammatical improvements; therefore, I am uncertain if the new content is in the lead.

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 same situation applies where I am unsure of which section the contributions came, but the article was definitely well-formatted with no noticeable grammatical errors; therefore, the added content was relevant.

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 seems very neutral in providing a wide range of historical context and information based on strong & functioning sources, which gives a sense of equality to the subject and removes any notions of bias or persuasion. The viewpoint of the public beyond 2016 is underrepresented in the 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
The sources that I tried were all functioning and generally thorough, while being current in relevancy to the information they provided. The new content from my peer did not require information citing.

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 content is definitely well-written as an abundance of information is provided while maintaining a natural reading flow. The added content aided in that flow by fixing grammatical and spelling errors, and my peer also added some new organization strategies to properly emphasise the major sections of the article.

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
The images used in the article are well executed for multiple reasons. The first being that the quantity of imagery is perfect in not being too crowded, while maintaining visual appeal. Another reason is the strong captioning of each photo and their adherence to the copyright regulations. The one improvement that could be suggested is the supplementation of certain images for improved versions, as the purposes of the photos are strong but the visual presences do not always correlate.

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?

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
Though I had not read the article prior, nor do I know what specific edits were made by my peer, the article was formatted very well and there were no noticeable grammatical errors; therefore, their additions improved the article quality. The next step in the content improvement would be the elaboration of the "Public Opinion" section and upgraded images.