User:NicoleTirado1/Society for Applied Anthropology/Malmanza0218 Peer Review

Nicole Tirado/Society for Applied Anthropology
== Peer review: Hey Nicole I really enjoy reading your Wikipedia draft. Its definitely on point and straightforward, really easy to understand the points. The only thing that you really need is to add is more reference. Other than that good job! ==

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)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

==== Lead evaluation: No unfortunately the lead has not been updated by my peer. Yes indeed the lead includes an introductory sentence and is really clear and is well describe on the topic. The lead does include by whom it was created, when it was created and the description of the topic. What I see in this draft is that the information that is being provided is more straight forward and it tells us what Society for Applied Anthropology really is and in what ways is helpful. The lead is fine with the details it has. ====

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

==== Content evaluation: The content that has been added is relevant to the topic, it gives us the information that we need to know. Yes it does seem that the content is up to date. I feel that we may need a bit more about the content like what the organization is still going and how it has grown. Yes the article gives us the information that we have been seeing through out the course of how to deal with the integration of others. ====

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

==== Tone and balance evaluation: I like the way the article is phrased, it feels that it has all the information needed and the key points of what represents. The claim is straightforward and gives the organization information well tone. ====

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

==== Organization evaluation: The article is well written and like I mention before is easily understandable. Well organize and straight on giving the information needed on being able to understand what the organization is about. ====

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


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

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 infoboxes, 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

==== Overall evaluation: Overall I did like the article, Nicole you did a great job. It was nicely written and i was able to understand the topic. The only suggestion I do have is to include more references and cite a little more, but other than that nice work. ====