User:Maschristi/Agatha Bacelar/Peterorfanos 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? maschristi
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Maschristi/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The article does not have a clear lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * There are a couple paragraphs introducing her
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the lead does not but could outline the major sections much better

Lead evaluation
Lead of the article is up to you to make because it is a new article so try to give more of a general summation of her and her career/beliefs.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, content added is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think adding more on liquid democracy could help out your article a lot!

Content evaluation
Content is overall relevant and necessary for her Wikipedia page but should reference more on liquid democracy as that is her main political device/what she is know for.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, content is not bias in anyway.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, no claims are made to seem biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, no viewpoints are over or under represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, even though you talk about the race you do a good job of not trying to convince the reader to vote for her.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are no sources in the additions to the article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, content sounds professional and is written very well.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, I believe the content is well-organized because it separates background and political history well.

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

N/A

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?
 * There are no sources included.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * No sources.
 * 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?
 * No, not really.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Article does not link to other articles.

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?

Overall evaluation
The content written is all new as it is a new article and the content written is all relevant. Please include citations and separate your article into concise sections that easily guide the reader. Adding a piece about liquid democracy would also be pretty useful.