User:Marisajones/Boston cream doughnut/Tmaraki 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) Marisajones
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Marisajones/Boston cream doughnut

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Introductory sentence, yes. An intro section, no.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not exactly. There is an opener line that tells readers exactly what the topic is, but there isn't a summary paragraph that tells readers what aspects of the topic will be discussed.
 * 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 and not overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, very much relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, within the past 10 years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? For the most part, yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The testimonials from Simon Fraser University and the professional wrestler followed by comments like "beloved baked good to many all over the nation" seem to lean towards an argumentative tone of convincing readers of how good the donut is.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The opinion of how good the donut is overrepresented, while details about how the donut is made and if it is beloved by other countries is underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It seems to be written to argue how good the donut is.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Mostly yes. There are some sites that may have questionable legitimacy.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? For the most part yes. Many are more opinionated than factual.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all working.

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? Yes.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There's a lot of good content that would be easier to follow along if it were organized in sections. For example, a majority of the info could be in a History section, while content pertaining specifically to the state of Massachusetts could have its own "State of Massachusetts Donut" section, or something similar.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? YES. Awesome photos.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

For New Articles Only (N/A)
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 info boxes, 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 article is definitely much more complete. The content added has given the article much more weight and substance.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Strengths include the mouth-watering images, and the in-depth compelling information added pertaining to the history of the donut.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content just needs to be organized into a History section, separate from the Intro section. The details and debate pertaining to Massachusetts should have its own section as well since there is significant information on it. And if there is another section that just talks about how the donut is manufactured and produced, that's a point of view that would give this article more richness.