User:Lshane23/2020 United States presidential election/Crazy326459 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? Crazy326459
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lshane23/2020 United States presidential election

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
Yes, the lead of this article clearly describes what the main article is going to talk about. I think that the lead is rather long. It could be broken down into a more concise lead with a secondary introduction paragraph that goes into more detail. The lead does include a description of the major sections, but I think it could be organized in a more productive manner. I think that the lead is filled with too many details that stray away from the initial purpose of a lead.

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
Yes, the information that was added by my peer was relevant to the topic and up-to-date. In fact, in the talk page, my peer suggested updating the article weekly to ensure that the presented information was accurate and current with the changing political environment. The article does not deal with an equity gap on Wikipedia nor does it represent an underrepresented population/topic. In fact, this article is probably the complete opposite of those things.

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
For a political piece, I think that this article does a decent job of remaining to have a neutral tone. I did not see any claims that appeared to have an overly biased stance. I would say that both positions/sides were equally represented in the article. This article was very refreshing in it's ability to remain neutral in a page about politics.

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 sources that are cited throughout this article do a decent job of supporting the information that is presented in the article. My only critique of the sources would be that most of them take you to other Wikipedia pages that talk about the sources, instead of taking you directly to the main source. For example, NBC News is cited, but instead of taking you to an NBC page with voting information, the link takes you to a Wikipedia article that talks about NBC.

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 well-written and organized really well. I was unable to find any grammatical errors in the content, which is a good thing. Besides the lead section, I really like how the article is organized.

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
The images make it easy to find a brief summary about each candidate. I think that they add a tremendous amount to the article. The images are appealing and easy to understand.

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
Overall, I think that this article is really good. My main edit to the page would be to fix the lead. I think that it covers too much information and strays away from the purpose of a lead. I gives an outline for the article, but the it it's very concise. I think that information added was helpful to the overall article.

Thank you for the feedback. I will definitely focus on fixing the lead, as I feel that I misunderstood that part of the assignment when I first wrote it. Going forward, I definitely do need to focus on making more substantial changes as you mentioned