User:Mswintosky/Post-mortem photography/Fejenn 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? Mswintosky
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Post-mortem photography

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has not been updated to reflect any new content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead has a nice introductory sentence to clearly explain what Post-mortem photography is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? After the lead, there is a table of contents displaying the sections including in the article. there is no paragraph explaining the sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The Lead contains only information that has to do with the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is very concise but I do think i would add more as a definition of Post-mortem photography

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? all information in the article is relevant to the topic of Post-mortem photography
 * Is the content added up-to-date? I believe everything is up to date. All references are not out dated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think there is some content missing when it comes to what could be considered Post-mortem photography and I think the ethics of Post-mortem photography could be added
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I do think there is a gap in learning about post-mortem photography. I don't believe the article addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, I don't read any bias within the article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I don't believe there is any bias
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I do believe when talking about other cultures, there could be more cultures talked about in that section.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The information is all neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? there is not much new content add yet. but the content in the sandbox is reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I think the sources are thorough and the sources are great for this article.
 * Are the sources current? Yes the sources are current
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There are many different sources within the article
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, links work well.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is clear and easy to read
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? there are minor spelling errors and the sentence structure can we worked on.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I like the breakdown of the article and I can understand the organization of the article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, there are very relatable pictures within the article
 * Are images well-captioned? There could be longer captions on the pictures and i like the sources being added to the pictures
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? There are sources being added to the pictures
 * 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? The article has reliable sources to support the topic.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There is 28 sources and all sources are relivate to the topic but more can definitely added.
 * 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? Yes, very similar to other articles.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes I believe so

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I do like how the citations added to the photos. not much other than that has been done.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Citations being added to back up what is put in the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? Major topics can be explained more and sentence structure can be better.

Overall evaluation
-- Very interesting topic. I know not much has done to the article yet but looking at your sandbox, there are great sources that I think will add a lot to the article and will make the topic stronger. when there is more added I think the article will be great.

Five things I think that could be added are:


 * 1) I think a section on ethics involving post-mortem photography can be added.
 * 2) Sentence structure can be revised
 * 3) Photo descriptions can be stronger
 * 4) More cultures can be added to the culture section to be more diverse
 * 5) check for spelling errors