User:Marlee Gaddy/Economic globalization/Tsweeney617 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) Marlee Gaddy
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marlee_Gaddy/Economic_globalization#/Sandbox_Economic_Globalization

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * 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? Not entirely but I think it is laid out for us to understand what will be mentioned just not a description.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all of the topics introduced in the lead are mentioned somewhere in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise, but I can't tell if it is finished or not it seems like there are still some pieces that are being added.

Lead evaluation
I think that the lead is very put together and gives us, the reader, a clear idea of what will be mentioned. Although I couldn't tell if it was entirely finished or not because it seems like there was some areas where it would say "add something here about this, etc."

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I'm not super well-versed on this topic so I personally don't know if it is underrepresented, but I do think that there is always more information to add.

Content evaluation
I think that the overall information that is being talked about is very good but I think right now a lot of the sections are still being put together. So a lot of them are just detailing what will be talked about and added but is still being drafted.

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
I think the tone is very neutral and informational rather than biased. Again since it is not finished I think it is hard to tell but in the direction that it is going I don't see any biases coming up.

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
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
I think that the sources are going in the right direction, it seems like there could be a couple more but I know that you're probably not finished with the project.

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
I think the organization is really easy to understand but I think there could be a couple more areas that are concise. As of right now there is only an intro and two other sections so I think some other sections could add even more.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? n/a
 * 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, but I think there could be a couple more sources but I don't know if you're still adding to the article or not.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? yes, for the most part
 * 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? not that I can tell
 * 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?