User:NiqueMallory/Kiki wolf/NiqueMallory 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? Nathaly Ruiz
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nathalyruiz60/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Kiki Wolfkill doesn't have a wiki page yet, but Yes their lead seems to reflect new information.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it get right to the point as to what Kiki is known for.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I would say it does because it mentions she was a race car driver, however not until the sections on early and later life do they go into detail as to how she started racing and what part of her life racing was apart of. Same with her involvement with Halo, it's mentioned in the lead but goes into detail in the sections below.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think the lead is concise enough

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? I think that the content added it relevant to Kiki's biography yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Based on the dates of the references latest being 2012 I think the information provided it up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No that I am aware of.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes I definitely think that the person they choose addresses historically underrepresented populations, because women in gaming especially in a high position at the company rarely get represented in mainstream.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content in the adult life section about her racing and winning them isn't neural, especially when you say, "Her best races". In this instance I think it would be better for you to just list the date, the race, points and her place, any other information or adjectives takes away from the neutrality. Example: In 2000, at the 2000 BMG Motorola Cup Kiki Wolfkill accumulated 19 points in one race. Even just by added alone at the end of that if would change the tone to amazement.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes, me as the reader I get the since that the author is proud of Kiki and even if that isn't your intentions that's how certain parts of this article reads
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I feel like for the race car information to be apart of her adult life it goes a little to much in detail, as if it should have it's own section, however, if the same information was in a section called Racing Journey the impact would be different.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No I think that the content fits the project of it being a biography it's just the way some of it reads is a little off to me

==== Tone and balance evaluation: I think that the tone and balance of this article needs work. There are parts were neutrality is an issue for the author, and other parts where the flow between sentences just isn't there. I think this group would benefit from a Zoom where they read the article out loud to one another, with the thinking that is needs to be a recount of this person's life nothing more or less. My suggestions may make you think that this is a huge problem but it really isn't there are just a few syntactical choices I would change, for instance try to find dates/years instead of saying at a young age multiple times. ====

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I believe so the only one that I feel sketchy about is the blog that provided the reviews of the games. The site to me looks like regular people giving there reviews on the game, but will wiki accept that as credible I don't know.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes there sources are current with the earliest being 2012 I believe.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes there isn't one reference with the same author
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is concise, however there are suggestions I made above that I think will help improve the clarity of this article.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I don't believe so, however it is possible since some of the sentences lacks flow
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think that the the sections do reflect the major points in her life, however I do think racing and it's relation to her father and childhood should have its own section.

Images and Media: There were No 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? Yes, Kiki Wolfkill meets the notability requirements and this article is sources by 15 secondary sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There are 15 listed sources and each piece of new information in the article is cited by the references
 * 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, it follows the usual lead, career, and personal life format
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

==== New Article Evaluation: As a new article I think you hit the nail on the coffin when finding a person of notable who has yet to be acknowledged by wiki yet. I also think that the structure and length of your article if normal for a newly starting article like the Joe Button article I believe. ====

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? It provided information about the life and journey of Kiki Wolfkill and as well, how she was influential in the creation of multiple games etc.
 * How can the content added be improved? As time continues and Kiki Wolfkill continues to make impressive strides in her career the best way to improve the content is to continue to add to it.