User:Ljkennedy03/Thanatology/Mya.white 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? Ljkennedy03
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Thanatology

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
The lead seems to be weak. There is not a brief description listed about what the article will discuss. There is not an excess leading information added that will not be present in the article. The article does introduce the topic of the article and a brief definition, but it just needs more information that leads into what will be talked about.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content seems up to date, a few articles are from early 2000 which should be updated. The content added all seems to be relevant to me. There could be room to improve the coping with death section and to add more ideas.

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
The content seems to be neutral. The information seems to go away from persuasive and lean more towards informative. The viewpoints seem to be fairly included to represent each topic.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The information that is given all seems to be backed up by reliable cited sources. The sources are all after the year 2000, but still not as recent as they should be. I would consider an up to date article to have sources off 5 years or so from now. The links I tried all worked. There are many different authors used, which allows for a diverse spectrum.

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 content is all very easy to read and has few grammatical errors. The article is broke down nicely. It makes it easier to read by having a lead and then main points separated into subsections.

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 is only one image. The image enhances the article by giving a quick image to describe what is being talk about and helps allow the reader to image what is going on. The image is appealing because it is placed in a way where it goes with the information and is off to the side and not in the way. The image has a short one word caption.

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
I would improve the content by trying to update with recent up to date sources of 5 years of less. I would also add more information to the lead setting up what will be discussed. Coping with death definetly has room for improvement and more topics could be added.