User:Marciewallace27/Emmanuella Lambropoulos/Kassidystevens 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? Marciewallace27
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Marciewallace27/Emmanuella Lambropoulos

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? No.
 * 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? There is no lead.

Lead evaluation
Being as this is information to add into a pre-existing article, Marcie has elected to leave the lead on the Wikipedia page as is, which I think is a good thing to do.

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? No.

Content evaluation
All of the information that has been added to the sandbox is very relevant to the topic and does a very good job at giving a lot more information about Emmanuella Lambropoulos. Though there are a couple articles cited without dates, all of the information seems to be current and reflective of where she is at today.

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? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
The information provided is all presented very factually and free of bias. It further elaborates on the little amount of information that is on Lambropoulos' existing Wikipedia page, as well as adds more relevant information in a balanced way.

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? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
Many of the points that Marcie made are backed up by multiple reliable sources.

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? Yes.

Organization evaluation
The information has been categorized into their relevant spots in the sandbox, with early life, political career, and personal information all being distinct from one another.

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 no images or media added.

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?

New Article Evaluation
This is information to add to an already existing article; not a completely new article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is very thorough and factual, and adds a lot of detail that is missing in Lambropoulos' existing article.
 * How can the content added be improved? There could be links attached to the Wikipedia articles of the other people mentioned (such as Stéphane Dion) as well as the inclusion of the results from her riding in the 2019 election.

Overall evaluation
I have looked at what the existing Wikipedia article for Lambropoulos consists of right now, and it is not very much information. The content that has been put in the sandbox explains Lambropoulos' life and political career in much greater detail, which the article greatly needs, especially after she just won her second election. The amount of information found on somebody who had so little on her existing Wikipedia is quite impressive.