User:Nathanyalross/Illusory continuity of tones/Madelynbrouwer 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)
 * nathanyalross
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Nathanyalross/Illusory continuity of tones
 * Illusory continuity of tones

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does not seem anything has been added to the article at this point.
 * 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?
 * Not really, could be better.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, but the article is currently only the lead and one paragraph.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise for the page.

Lead evaluation
It introduces and defines the topic very well but needs the pages contents outlined a little more.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes it adds to the lead.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes last reviewed last week.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is only one content paragraph posted. The paragraphs in sandbox are a nice addition though.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes it deals with illusory continuity of tones which before now was a small definition page.

Content evaluation
The content written in sandbox adds nicely to what is currently on the page.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not at all.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No it is very neutral.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No it better defines and explains the topic without forcing a viewpoint.

Tone and balance evaluation
Balanced splendidly.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * None are listed.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Sources on the current page are both well regarded studies.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes and no, two are within the last 11 years and one was written over 30 years ago.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalised individuals where possible?
 * Unsure all seem to be lesser known researchers.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes all links work.

Sources and references evaluation
Make sure to include sources in your sandbox draft to support conclusions written.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes it is very easy to read and understand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Some comma splices.
 * Is the content added organised - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes both content templates are broken up to better digest information.

Organization evaluation
Very well organised just check commas and sentence overlaps.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * One simple graph
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

Images and media evaluation
Maybe add more as the article gets longer but the graph is nice.

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary info boxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes the article gives a more complete description of the topic.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content added connects everyday life to a seemingly complicated topic.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * It is a good start

Overall evaluation
Just remember to cite in your sandbox and then upload it to the page. It is very well written and is a nice addition to this wiki page!