User:Miajgoldberg/Deaf Culture - Deaf Bing/Aquakatze 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? Miajgoldberg
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Deaf Culture- Deaf Bing

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes, but it can be confusing to those who do not know Deaf Culture.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No. There is no lead really.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No. There needs to be more of an introduction not just a list.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? To concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * 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? Yes, it is written from the perspective of Deaf. Saying words like "we"
 * 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? N/A - no sources cannot comment on this section
 * 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?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes but it needs examples (mentioned will add videos so that will help)
 * 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?

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are none yet
 * 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? not yet
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? none yet
 * 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
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? no

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes, but needs more
 * What are the strengths of the content added? lots of different examples
 * How can the content added be improved? Make sections not just a list.

Overall evaluation
good but just needs more so it isn't just a list.