User:Owens.rebecca1/Master status/Ceedeeh11 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? (Owens.rebecca1)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Master status

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, they have added more information, but the information added does not pertain to the new content added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it is a clear definition and introduction of master status.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, there are four main sections, two of which the editor added.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead does not have any extra information that is not further explained in the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is relatively concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it gives further detail about master status.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It is hard to tell if the content added is up-to-date because their references are not included.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content missing or that does not belong.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content added is not bias and is very neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, all claims in the added content are neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? All views are evenly represented within the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content added is all neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? It appears as if it is backed up by a reliable secondary source, but it is not cited correctly.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? History.com and Cambridge.org are reliable sources, but I am not able to access the exact articles they used because there are no references.
 * Are the sources current? I am not able to tell without the references listed.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? There are no links besides the ones previously published. Those links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content added is very useful within the article. It adds a lot of value to the article, and it is also clear, concise, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, all content added is organized very well - it is very easy to read and comprehend.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media NO IMAGES WERE ADDED!!!!


 * 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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is much more detailed, easier to comprehend, and has great quality.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the content added are its depth and attention to detail. It ensures that all points about the topic are covered. It is also easy to understand and gives the audience a better understanding of the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved? It could include more outside sources and define some terms such as social construct.