User:Muc6/4moms/Pqt5124 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? (muc6)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Muc6/4moms

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, there is no lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? N/A
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? N/A
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? N/A

Lead evaluation
There was no lead, Muc6 went straight into the article. Muc6 should add a lead to make the article flow better.

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? Everything belong well
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation
Muc6 has very relevant content and did a good job at picking their sources.

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
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of Muc6's article is very balanced and keeps a very even flow. All of the writing is very neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * 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? No
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
All of Muc6's sources work well and obtain relevant information. Muc6 did a good job at picking their sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
Muc6 kept the article organized and well written. Muc6 has done a good job.

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? The article is very fact based and has zero spin to it. They did a good job at keeping it balanced.
 * How can the content added be improved? Muc6 should add a lead. other than that, Muc6 did a good job

Overall evaluation
Over all, Muc6 did a good job at writing a well balanced and informative article. Muc6 used reputable sources and did not stray from the facts. Good work Muc6.