User:Perla.Sunval/Criticism of atheism/Ramsabeoulve 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

 * User being Reviewed: User:Perla.Sunval
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Perla.Sunval/Criticism of atheism

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? : I cannot find a Lead in the sandbox, sub page, or in the article edit history.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? : N/A


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? : N/A


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? : N/A


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? : N/A

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? : I cannot find written content, only sources.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? : N/A
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? : N/A
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? : N/A?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? : N/A
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? : There are no claims I could personally find.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? : N/A
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? : N/A

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? : N/A
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? : Yes, the sources chosen seem good for the topic.
 * Are the sources current? : Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? : The authors are not too diverse, but they give different perspectives.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? : They are accessible to me as a fellow RCC student, but I do not think others could view them.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

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


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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? : The sources seem a solid basis to add credibility to the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? : The sources seem promising.
 * How can the content added be improved? : I'm not quite sure the direction this is going.