User:MarkSir0118/Broken windows theory/Simkinsfrannie 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? Skaswinkel/MarkSir0118
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Skaswinkel/sandbox

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? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation
the lead is detailed yet to the point. It was not necessary to add anything.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes, added more detail to what was already there
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation
the content added gives further explanation and examples on the topics already given.

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

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?a little bit, one source from 2000
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
all the sources are correct and relevant but one of them is from 2000, which could be considered not current.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Most is clear and easy to read but the first sentence is a little confusing.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not to my understanding.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
Overall organization is very good and detailed yet simple. There is not much added but what was added is detailed and organized well.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, no images, but they are not really necessary
 * Are images well-captioned? no images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? no images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no images

Images and media evaluation
No images were added, but there is not really a need for any because it is all explained well and not something that needs to be visualized.

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 article was already an in depth article but what the writers added improved the quality and detail of the article
 * What are the strengths of the content added? very detailed information that is valuable for the article
 * How can the content added be improved? be more simplified - written in terms for people who do not know anything about this topic because the people reading the article are looking for simple information

Overall evaluation
What was added was very helpful to better understanding the topic, even though it is not a lot of information, it is enough to understand better and get what is needed from the article.