User:MiriaamMP/Chaz Bono/Dublinmay123 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

 * MiriaamMP (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Chaz Bono

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes. Added whose Chaz Bono's parents were.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. It explains who the article is about and what chaz is famous for.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is no outline of the sections. There aren't too many section to being with.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I thought the lead was pretty simple. It was right to the point.

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. It was basic information explaining the events and shows Chaz had starred in. It also talks about his journey transitioning.
 * 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.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. There are 6 sources linked.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. The user attached the sources from the work cited to each piece of content.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes the content is clear and well organized.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The sections were broken down in a way that was organized but I wish there were more sections. Maybe they could add a personal life section.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Only two photos are posted.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

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? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes. Each piece of content has its sources linked to them.
 * 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? Yes. There was a section of external links that was listed at the bottom.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Content had credible sources.
 * How can the content added be improved? Adding more detail and the significance fo each piece of information.