User:Marshaemerson/Kim Rudd/Kwaaktime 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? Marsha Emerson, article on Kim Rudd
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Marshaemerson/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The results of the 2019 vote were included in the lead, it did not mention the updates regarding her personal life and political career.
 * 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? Yes, the numbers of the 2019 votes. These would likely be added into the tables below containing vote results anyway?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Looks fine.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, very.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. It's helpful, provides more information about her personal and work career/interests.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.

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? Not sure. Most utilize the Northumberland News as a source.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they do!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Overall well done.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Spelling is fine. One sentence could be re-worded: "when she announced she chose to step down to better represent her riding." to me would make more sense to say it like this" when she announced she was stepping down" or when she announced her choice to step down" but that may just be your writing style vs mine.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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


 * 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. N/A'''


 * 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, absolutely. Very helpful, more well-rounded article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Help people get to know a little more about Kim as a person, her background and interests, and her current political career.
 * How can the content added be improved? Links 5 and 6 are in opposite order, that could be switched perhaps.