User:MaireadL002/Uniporter/Putneyn4 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? (provide username) - MaireadL002
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: - Uniporter

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - No
 * 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? - No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - It is concise

Content
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? - There could be more content added, but everything that is there belongs
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - I am not sure

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - I don't think so
 * 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
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - Yes
 * Are the sources current? - Mostly, one added source was from 1981.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - There does seem to be an array of authors
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - The links in the article do seem to work.

Organization
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? - No

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?

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? - Yes, the added content provided much more detail
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - The added content provided a more thorough explanation of the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved? - I think the content that was added would be difficult to improve, but the organization of the entire article could be improved.