User:Mnbella/Women in warfare and the military (2000–present)/Camillewellman 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

 * Reviewing: Mnbella and SushiMulaney
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mnbella

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The Lead did not need to be updated because they were just adding facts and not changing any topics in the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead includes a well-written introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the Lead overviews the major sections that are discussed.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is short and concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all of the content is relevant because all the information talks about women's roles in warfare and how it has changed in different places throughout the years.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the content is up-to-date because they added information from the past couple years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All the content seems to fit in well with the existing information and the topic of the article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? All of the content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? They only added neutral facts so there is no bias towards any one particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Since it is just facts being added and nothing else there doesn't seem to be any viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? There is no persuasion in the content they added.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Each fact they added is backed up by a reliable source such as academic journals, websites with reliable information about the military and warfare, and current events that discuss women's involvement in the military.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The articles seem to be very thorough and discuss in depth the concepts at hand. They reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are somewhat current. The sources that have the dates are 2010 and 2016. However, since this article is formatted as a timeline, sources from past years make sense to use in order to add information to those years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is very concise and easy to understand. It does not include any unnecessary information.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is well-organized because each fact has a specific section that it falls under in the timeline of the article and fits in well with the other information.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? They did not add any images.
 * Are images well-captioned? They did not add any images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? They did not add any images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? They did not add any images.

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? This is not a new article.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? This is not a new article.
 * 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? This is not a new article.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? This is not a new article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content has improved the overall quality of the article and it is more complete because more information and facts have been added to several of the years on the timeline giving readers greater knowledge on the subject.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the content added is that they are neutral facts that do not persuade one way or the other. Also the content covers a variety of countries and years and doesn't just focus on one country or specific period of time.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content that has been added seems to be good, but adding a few more facts may help improve the article even more.