User:MortonA18/Cheryll Tickle/NickMcCo Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

MortonA18


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MortonA18/Cheryll_Tickle?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cheryll Tickle

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The updated lead reflects the new content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead is short and provides a great introduction of Cheryll Tickle.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead is brief and provides a short introduction of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The information in the lead is all present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise.
 * The information in the lead is all present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise.
 * The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content added provides new information about Cheryll Tickle.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is no content missing or any that does not belong.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is no content missing or any that does not belong.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added is neutral and unbiased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no biased claims that were in the article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * All viewpoints were equally represented throughout the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content does not try to persuade the reader in any way.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content does not try to persuade the reader in any way.
 * The content does not try to persuade the reader in any way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The sources are reliable and relevant.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are thorough and reflect literature on the Cheryll Tickle.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some sources are current, but some of the sources are rather old. Some date back to 1993.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links work.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links work.
 * All of 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 clear and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No apparent errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is broken down for the most part. The research section could probably be further broken down.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is broken down for the most part. The research section could probably be further broken down.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The content added improves the overall quality. The addition of the new material provides new knowledge to the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths include the addition of the research section allowed for the more in depth understanding of what Cheryll Tickle did in her field.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The only other major additions could be more sources for the Research section and to break down the Research section. Overall, the article is really well done.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The only other major additions could be more sources for the Research section and to break down the Research section. Overall, the article is really well done.