User:Prude.rager01/Chamicero de Perijá/Magicccfff 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? Prude.rager01
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Prude.rager01/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has been updated to reflect the new content and background information.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * There is an introductory sentence and really sums up what is about to be described.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it does include article's major section
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, there is additional information that has not been present.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think it was the perfect balance.

Lead evaluation
I think the lead gives off a good introduction and well rounded description to the entire article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * It provides information in recent years
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Nope, all the content belongs to this article
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, it does as the article is relevant and talks about

Content evaluation
The content is really relevant and fits well to the original article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content is neutral and gave opinions on both sides.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Nope, both the content and tone was very unbiased and neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Nope, the content was very fair and unbiased.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article, content, and tone gave a neutral side to the original article. The content was fair and gave opinion to both sides of the argument.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, there was a good reference page
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources do reflect the literature.
 * Are the sources current?
 * All the sources are up to date and in recent years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, from a diverse group of references.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, all the links work

Sources and references evaluation
Good reference list with sources that are reliable and also well rounded so that it gave points in both sides.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, very well-written
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No grammar or spelling areas
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, gave a good introduction as well as a brief description, and then it lays out the points very well.

Organization evaluation
I liked the organization from the author as it told a small story, an dthe organization was also very logical.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the images were well in that it backed up your argument
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * It does
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I thought it was good

Images and media evaluation
I think the images added was really relevant to your article and your content.

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
 * Definitely more complete
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I thought presenting two sides of the argument gave a better understanding for readers.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Maybe include more views on what international countries or people view this area.

Overall evaluation
I thought the content and the style of writing was very well organized. I really enjoyed the content in the article and the media/images were a perfect component that backed up your content.