User:LizbethAcevedo21/Celia Sánchez/Woosterstudent2000 Peer Review

General info

 * Author: LizbethAcevedo21
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celia_S%C3%A1nchez

Lead evaluation
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?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise

Content evaluation
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No missing, content; unsure about the mention of the subject’s neurosis in the “Early life” section

Tone and balance evaluation
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Somewhat
 * A bit of bias toward the end in Legacy section - "key attributes," "paved the way"
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No for both
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and references evaluation
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes - within the decade
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * In-text sources; class textbooks

Organization evaluation
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes - concise, straight to the point imagery
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Gives more insight into early life of prominent figure; allows for them to be “humanized”
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Expanded upon a little bit, explain significance
 * Connection to significant events later on in life

Overall evaluation
Nice addition of reputable, scholarly sources. Significant contribution to each article section. Maybe get rid of some of the bias in the Legacy portion of the article.