User:Lisacalabro92/Rebecca Allen (artist)/Francescacast Peer Review

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? (Lisacalabro92)

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lisacalabro92/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:


 * 1) Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? -Yes it has been updated
 * 2) Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it starts with a biography of Rebecca Allen
 * 3) Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It goes through a quick summary of her careers and education.
 * 4) Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? -Yes a lot of added information
 * 5) Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - I feel like the lead can be a little shorted and more concise. Her article just starts with a biography. It should start with a few short sentences that introduce Allen.

Guiding questions:


 * 1) Is the content added relevant to the topic? - yes it is
 * 2) Is the content added up-to-date? I looked through some of the links and most of them are relatively up to date.
 * 3) Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?  I feel like more about Rebecca Allen's personal life can be added. The only thing I am seeing about her is biography and places that she worked.
 * 4) Content evaluation - overall this article is structured very nicely. It is easy to read and understand.

Guiding questions:


 * 1) Is the content added neutral? - i feel the content is neutral.
 * 2) Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? -No because she only mentions a timeline of her work.
 * 3) Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? -I feel like the only underrepresented part is a back story of her life.
 * 4) Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? -No
 * 5) Tone and balance evaluation -Overall i feel that the article is very neutral and no biasos opinions are being expressed.

Guiding questions:


 * 1) Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? -Yes the article has several reliable sources.
 * 2) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - they are very informative
 * 3) Are the sources current? -Yes, all of the sources are within the last 3- 10 years. Their is a variety of different sources.
 * 4) . Do they work? -Yes
 * 5) Sources and references evaluation - good and informative sources are used throughout this article.

Guiding questions:


 * 1) Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? -Content is easy to read and understand.
 * 2) Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - not that I noticed
 * 3) Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? -Yes well organized.
 * 4) Organization evaluation - very organized. She even made a timeline of the different works she has done.

Guiding questions:

If your peer added images or media - NO imagines present


 * 1) Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned?
 * 2) Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * 3) Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * 4) Images and media evaluation For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. - NOT a new article

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? New Article Evaluation Overall impressions

Guiding questions:


 * 1) Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - the article is definitely more complete. There was a lot of information added about Rebecca Allen. I do feel there is still more information that can be added.
 * 2) What are the strengths of the content added? Some of the strengths are that the reader is provided with a variety of different works Allen has created. Which Allows you to see her accomplishments and get to understand her as a person.
 * 3) How can the content added be improved? -The content could improve by adding a few more sections of information about her. Maybe add more about her education, personal life, what inspired her to work in the design field.