User:MikaylaS2000/Auditory illusion/Js134 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? (provide username) MikaylaS2000
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:MikaylaS2000/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? While she hasn't changed a lot from the original article, what she has added works with what was there.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It starts off pretty well describing what the article is about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does have the content box, but other than that not really.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? A little, the lead mentions perfect audio receptors but doesn't mention it again.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is fairly concise.

Lead evaluation
Overall I think the lead is pretty good.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? No other content was added after the lead.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content there seemed to be up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It could definitely be fluffed up some.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation
It is ok but there is definitely work that needs to be done.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone overall is pretty good and neutrality is kept.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? They are a bit dated but they are current to the last couple of decades.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes and no
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources look good so far but you definitely need to make sure you use the ones from the bibliography.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not any that are immediately noticeable.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Generally yes

Organization evaluation
Looks good so far.

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? Overall the little you added helped some, but you do still have a lot to do.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? You did help explain what an auditory illusion is, better than what it was before.
 * How can the content added be improved? Just keep going in the same direction and you will do fine.