User:Kwaaktime/Cheryl Gallant/Marshaemerson 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? Kwaaktime
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kwaaktime/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, not at the time of this review.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It includes a content section with links to the corresponding section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it adds information that was missed in the original article such as information on what Gallant had done in other sessions of Parliament.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes it is.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * It does not appear to be missing crucial content nor have content that is irrelevant.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims that have biased wording or content, it is presented in an unbiased neutral manner.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There is a section on Gallant's stance on the carbon tax that is quite short, however seems to still have the content needed to represent her point. Otherwise, it seems to have a good balance of representation of the information.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it does not persuade the reader to any one side, it is unbiased and neutral in presenting information.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All of the newly added content has reliable sources and citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are thorough and present good information.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, they are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links for citations work at the time of reviewing.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is well-written and very clear. The sentence structure is not too long and remains unbiased.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * It does not appear to 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?
 * It is well organized and fits well into the information in the original state of the article allowing a clear presentation of the information and a better "flow".

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * N/A
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * 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 does have many reliable sources to back up the new information.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * There was many sources added that provides a wide viewpoint of the information presented and does represent the available literature.
 * 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?
 * Yes, it very well does follow the structure of similar articles such as subheadings, content boxes, etc.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes, it links to other articles such as other pages on the committees, political organizations, and other politicians.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, it has added a large amount of content that is very relevant to the article and has allowed for a clear understanding of Gallant's political career as well as stances on issues.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It filled in gaps of information that were previously missed and allows the reader to have more information on things Gallant did in different sessions of Parliament as well as information on inquiries done on Gallant.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The amount of information added and the neutral language was a strength. There could have been more information on Gallant's personal life.