User:Morgan Kennon/Hurtful communication/Rciszewski 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) Ric Ciszewski
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Morgan Kennon/Hurtful communication

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? It appears that it is al original content and work by the student.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise in its content.

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? As I am not that familiar with the subject I am not sure, but it seems to be thorough and complete.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

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, it seems to be natural and balanced.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it is not trying to be persuasive.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I checked a couple of the sources and the seem to be legit.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? There was one link and it did work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is and reflects the authors skill.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media No


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, but I am not sure that would add to the content.
 * Are images well-captioned? NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA

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? I am sure there is more sources, but for this purpose they have an adequate number of sources.
 * 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? I did not see info boxes on their page, perhaps they could be added.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? There is not linked articles on this page.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I think it is a well written and thorough piece that covers the topic well.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The topic is covered in a manner that is easy to read and understand without being too long.
 * How can the content added be improved? The inclusion of hurtful communications in social media could be added.

Overall evaluation
This was a well written piece on a subject that I had no exposer to prior. The author makes the subject matter approachable and easy to understand. It is concise as not to lose the readers interest mid page, but with enough information to properly inform the reader. I belie it meets the for the assignment and has an proper number of credible source to make the work accurate. The only area that I would like to see expanded would be the inclusion of the social media component that I mention above.