User:Lucaskim7/Civic engagement/Lindseyjli3 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? Lucaskim7
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lucaskim7/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the Lead has somewhat been updated to reflect the new content. The student seems to jump right into discussing the new content that is being added, rather than setting up a brief general introduction of what's to be covered.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead does include an introductory sentence and describes the article's topic, but it's more in regards to what the student plans to improve upon.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the Lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the Lead doesn't include information that isn't presented in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is a combination of both concise and overly detailed.

Lead evaluation

 * Lucas seemed to draft his planned contributions rather than an actual draft for the article. The planned contributions were very detailed and included an insightful analysis of the flaws in the current form of the article, specifically the tone being a little subjective.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic. The content mentions possible improvements that can be made to the current form of the article of "civic engagement," such as restructuring some parts of the article in a more understandable format.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content added is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, there doesn't seem to be any missing content or content that doesn't belong.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article doesn't seem to deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps nor does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Content evaluation

 * The content that Lucas plans addresses valid points in the civic engagement article and overall a good starting point!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content being added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Overall, the claims are neutral and unbiased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The article draft covers many perspectives and doesn't seem to be overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content added is neutral and doesn't seem to persuade the reader in favor of a certain position.

Tone and balance evaluation

 * Based on the planned contributions draft, the content that is being added seems to be unbiased and providing a neutral POV.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the new content is supported by reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the sources are written by a diverse spectrum or authors and don't seem to include historically marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work!

Sources and references evaluation

 * Overall, the sources check out and seem to be reliable. However, something to keep in mind is the citing format.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, overall, the content is really clear and concise as well as well-organized.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Currently, there don't seem to be any significant grammar or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the content is well-organized and thoughtful as well in regards to how each section is broken down.

Organization evaluation

 * Overall, the planned contributions draft was really thorough and detailed with many categories. When creating the actual article draft, I think it would be beneficial to have headings above each section since there is a lot of information that is planning to be covered.