User:Komalbadesha/Ranked voting/Bryankjh 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)
 * Komalbadesha
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Komalbadesha/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No the Lead has not been updated
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, there is three sentences of introduction that describes the topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead does not explicitly describe the major sections but there is a Contents page that lists this.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No the Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think the Lead is a little too detailed and can be made more concise by summarizing the main points without going into detail.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes the content added is relevant to the topic but I am unsure which section it would be added to
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes the content added is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No all of the content seems to be directly relevant with the article's topic.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No the article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * I think the content added can be perceived by some as favoring the None of the Above proposition.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There is no explicitly biased claim but the author can do a better job of showcasing a wider diversity of positions.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The viewpoints on None of the Above may be perceived as overrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No the content does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes the content is backed up by a list of sources, but they are not directly cited on to the article, which makes it hard to tell what came from what.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes the sources are thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes the sources seem to be up-to-date.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes the links that are provided are from a diverse spectrum of authors and publications.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the links work but they are not cited directly onto the doc.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is well-written but seems to be in a tone that fits more of an essay than an encyclopedia article.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, the content does not 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?
 * No, the content is not organized into any specific sections yet.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I think the content added makes the article more complete, but there needs to be work done on organizing the contributions so that it is clear what sections these sentences will be added to. Also, I think there needs to be work done on the tone of the contributions to ensure that it is more neutral and sounds encyclopedic instead of something written similar to essay paragraphs.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content added is that it is up-to-date and can thus account for events like COVID-19 and add the impacts into the subject matter.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content added can be improved by incorporating the citations directly within the text, providing a broader and thus more neutral viewpoint of the subject matter, and employing a more encyclopedic tone.