User:Oliviafrye/Elizabeth Haysom/Sophie Potts 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)
 * Oliviafrye
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Elizabeth Haysom
 * User:Oliviafrye/Elizabeth Haysom

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

 * Yes, the additions in her sandbox were added to the article
 * Introductory sentence is concise and clear.
 * The article's major sections should be outlined in one additional sentence at the end of the lead.
 * The information on the Haysom parents (first few sentences of second paragraph of lead) are not later spoken about.
 * The Lead has a few details ^ that should rather be included in the body of the article (I don't think they're fundamental to the article, but more so additional context.

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?

Content evaluation

 * I think the added content is both relevant and up-to-date. The article otherwise had not made clear Haysom's whereabouts after the trial and to where she was being deported, so I think this addition is great.

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

 * The added contente is neutral and unbiased, with no apparent argument present.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

 * The ABC news poll doesn't seem to have any information on this case, but I could have been looking in the wrong place.
 * The other 3 articles are all current and reliable news sources -- great updates on the parole situations of the convicts.

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 content is all well organized. I think a few things could be reworded or grammatically shifted for sake of clarification.
 * For instance, could maybe say "due to her Canadian citizenship" instead of "since she is a Canadian citizen" (just sounds more clear when I read it in my head, but not necessarily shorter, perhaps a personal choice!).

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?

Images and media evaluation

 * media wasn't added

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

 * The content added definitely improves the article. It adds clarity where needed and most importantly updates the article on the Haysom's recent parole situation.
 * I think the introduction could definitely be edited down to be more concise and paint a clearer outline of the article as a whole. There are some extraneous details about the parents and the arrest that could be alluded to in the lead, but elaborated on later.
 * Overall, great work!!