User:Mberk11/Political movement/Cw1120 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? Mberk11 and Coffee1799
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mberk11/Political movement

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?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
This section does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic. I think that some of the information from the sections on the original article is missing in this section, such as the revolution theories. I think that this section is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * 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?

Content evaluation
I think that all of the content is relevant to the topic and seems up-to-date. I don't think that there is any content missing in this section. It seems to describe the overall topic well. I think that it deals with one of Wikipedia's content gaps by discussing failed movements as well as the more well-known movements.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Most of the content added seems neutral. I don't think that any of the claims seem heavily biased toward a particular position and the content does not attempt to persuade the reader.

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?
 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
All of the sources work and are current. They also seem to be reliable and thorough for the topic and section. It also appears that the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content is well-written and gets the information across in a way that is well-supported with examples. There are a few grammatical errors, but not many. The draft is only one section, but the paragraphs within this section are 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?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images or media on the draft. There is one picture on the article and it is well-captioned. The final version of the draft might benefit from more images of other political movements to display further the variety of different movements.

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?

New Article Evaluation
This draft is adding to an already published article.

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
I think that this section will improve the quality of the article, with use of more sources and more examples. I think that the draft can be improved by double-checking grammar and by making sure that all of the information from the other sections is included. Overall, I think that this is a good start to improving the article.