User:MattMattPSY/Motivated reasoning/Calebdroush 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

 * Motivated reasoning
 * Motivated reasoning

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * It looks like it has been updated to be more concise and actually act as an intro and not an info dump.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it defines motivated reasoning well.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * This is missing and may need to be added to.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, everything is covered as it should be
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise, may add another section if we decide to.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * It seems to be, but the added stuff is sparse
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Everything is within the last ten years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * It feels like there is so much that has been written on the subject over the past couple of years that could add it the article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * It seems very neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * None that I can see
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Yes, most of the article is based on what was done twenty, thirty years ago.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * it doesn't seem so

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is pretty tough and spotty in a few spots
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No it does not.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The specific points are currently being contested.

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


 * 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.


 * 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?
 * A little bit but there is much more that can be added in my opinion.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It is concise and useful so far
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More detail and other opinions and sources from update articles that have newer theories. It will need to be discussed with the group