User:Khamelia H./Collaborative writing/Fredmaurer 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? (Khamelia H. )
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Collaborative writing

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead has been updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead is very concise with being clearly described.
 * 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? Nope
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I believe the lead is very concise, but not over detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is very relevant by the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content is up to date within a couple years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All the content belongs in the article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is 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?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all the information is backed up with valuable secondary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are relevant within the information.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current with sources from 2014.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links do work. When you click on the blue, the link pops up.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? very well organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no pictures
 * Are images well-captioned? no captions/ pictures
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?n/a

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? Yes, it meets it.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? yes, and medium list of sources.
 * 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? n/a
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? The sources are the only links.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is complete, and very organized.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Lots of sections, good wording, and can understand clearly.
 * How can the content added be improved? Add one or two pictures for visuals.