User:Melanie.riveracolón/White chocolate/Paola Rios L 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:  Melanie.riveracolón
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Melanie.riveracolón/White chocolate

Lead[edit]
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:
The information that is provided in the lead is new and update. The draft that she added and created answers in an introductory sentence about the article. No, their isn't a brief description about the articles major sections. Yes, she has included information that wasn't present in the article. The article is provide with a lot of details, but I think it's great because of the type of article she choose.

Content[edit]
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:
The new information she added it relevant to the topic that she's working on. Some of the paragraphs are lacking information, but it's very precise. I'm aware of the realistic information and educational topics she is covering.

Tone and Balance[edit]
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:
The content added is work on a neutral tone. The information in the headings is not develop as much, but I think she is being more concise and preventing to overdetail the information. No, it's just information about the topic and article that's writing about.

Sources and References[edit]
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:
Their are some new sources in the article and they are current. I checked a few and the are working and providing the ideas she has given. They are reliable sources.

Organization[edit]
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?

Overall impressions[edit]
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 article has been improved and provided with more useful information added in the contents. The strengths in the content are the minor details that are well developed in a paragraph at the beginning of the article. You can see it has improving in content and presentation. Is a very develop topic and it's gathering the important information, nice work.