User:Leahcormier/Coordinated management of meaning/Ryankaty14 Peer Review

General info
Leah Cormier
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Leahcormier/Coordinated management of meaning
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Coordinated management of meaning

Evaluate the drafted changes
yes, the lead has been updated to reflect the new content that needed to be added. They added information that wasn't in the original article. the new information is organized and easy to understand for the reader. Also, the lead's first sentence does describe what the article is about. there could be more information in the lead but it was just a draft so it's understandable that there is not a lot of information right now. yes, they added information that was not in the original article the new information was important and relevant to the topic. it's not overly detailed there is room to add more information about the article topic.

yes, the content in the article is relevant to the topic that is being written about. the content that I saw is up to date but there could be more information in the content area. it's not that there is content that does not belong there just could be more information added.

the content that I did see in the article was neutral and not biased. I did not see in the article that there was a certain position that was stated because it was neutral. I would say that the content is a little unrepresented because there needs to be more information about the topic. the topic talked about in this article persuades the reader one way or another but it does have great information about the topic.

the content is backed up by the secondary source. the content does reflect what the cited source stated in the article. the sources are thorough with the cited article and the sources are current.

the content in this article is well-written and easy to understand. The paragraph is simple and the author gets to the important parts of the information and makes it easy to understand the content. there are no errors in the article that I can see. the article is well-organized and broken into sections that are easy to understand. it does reflect the major points of the original article.

this article does not include images in the article.

the content that was added will enhance the article and make it a lot better. the strength is that there is strong and new information about the coordinated management of meaning. to improve the article add more information about the topic.