User:Novemberjazz/Eichler's rule/Kocurran1123 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)
 * I am reviewing KidAd's article
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:KidAd/Evaluate an Article

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes it is pretty concise however it is not clearly stated what is the lead and what is the rest of the content.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Sort of, the organization kind of all blends together.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the article is very short everything is included in about 2 paragraphs.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is extremely concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes it is.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes for the most part.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The article could go a lot more in depth on the topic, right now it is just the bare minimum of what it could be. There is a solid base but much more could be developed.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No it does not.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No not particularly.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are a low amount of sources which results in on the sources to be over represented but Adam has added a lot of more developed sources compared to what was originally there.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No it does not.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes it is.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes Adam has added many more accessible sources than what was originally provided and it seems as though he plans to add more.
 * 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?
 * Yes they do, one is in German however.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes it is.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No the content is good and provides a good mixture of academic and normal language to make the topic a bit more understandable.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Kind of, right now the article is pretty unorganized in the term of sections but the writing does flow well, I think that has to do with the lack of content on the subject.

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?
 * It has most definitely improved the article as it was quite underdeveloped before.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * There are more sources and more well rounded knowledge added.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The organization could be improved a little.