User:Kransom34/Isis King/DylanElder 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? Kransom34
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TAIqSeTEUigSTYHdDvAm62m7L625LTvYFKkPz8NfOqI/edit?ts=5f282b03

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
Yes, the lead has been updated to reflect the new content that Kelsey added. I think the new content that Kelsey added and changed greatly improves the lead. One minor suggestion I would make for this sentence to improve its flow is bolded and in brackets: "[King is] most wildly known for her role on both the eleventh cycle and the seventeenth cycle of the reality television show America's Next Top Model."

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 content added to this article provides important insight into the life of Isis King, and is all relevant and up to date. Nothing seems to be missing, and I do not identify anything that does not belong. For the content added to the last section of "America's Next Top Model" I have a suggestion to improve the sentence structure: "Taz Tagore, co-founder of the Reciprocity Foundation, said [that King's agenda on Cycle 17 was to break the stigma and destroy the barriers for those who identify with the LGBTQ+ community. This helped King become a role model for women in that community.]

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
I think tone and balance is one of the biggest strengths of this draft; Kelsey does a great job offering a very balanced view of the content she added. The description of Isis King's life seems to have a well-rounded view and covers all significant information. Nothing seems particularly biased to me, nor is there an attempt to persuade the ready in one way or another. Kelsey excels in providing factual information.

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
All of the new content that Kelsey added is well-sourced.

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 organization of this article is easy to follow. I like how all of Isis Kings' notable appearances throughout the media are separated and explained under different sections.

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
There are no images and media in this draft, but the article does include one.

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
Overall, I think Kelsey does a great job adding new, important, and factual information to this article. The tone remains neutral throughout, and aside from a few suggestions I made to improve sentence structure and flow, this draft is very well done.