User:LyssBlyss/Dona Bailey/Nleibovici 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

 * Dona Bailey (Alyssa Specter)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LyssBlyss/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * the lead had gone into more depth about Dona and her successes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes, the introductory sentence summarizes and describes the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No the lead does not include a brief description of the articles major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No everything mentioned in the lead was reiterated throughout the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * the lead is very concise, it follows a nice structure and makes it an enjoyable and easy read.

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?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes I did not see any content that raised a flag for me.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No not many claims are heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I wouldve liked to see a little more of the significance of the games Dona made
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes the content is properly cited with reliable sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources provide more extensive reading on the topic
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes is it clear and concise and overall an easy read,
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No grammatical errors have been found
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The topic has three sections, I would've liked to see maybe one more.

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

No images were added


 * 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?

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?
 * yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * the list seems exhaustive, there are many reliable sources
 * 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?
 * It has section headings but I do not think it containes an infobox
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Absolutely
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * A strength added is that the article now has a lot more reliable unbiased information on the topic
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Further research and adding of content, otherwise the content that is there is great