User:Quackdon/Man-on-the-side attack

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing? QuackDon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Man-on-the-side attack

Lead[edit]
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[edit]
The Lead is concise and discusses information relevant to the topic. It has been updated with new content and is concise, specific, and easy to understand.

Content[edit]
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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation[edit]
There is currently sections outside of the lead, but the data presented in the lead is accurate and up to date. There are a few topics missing and examples, which can fill in holes of equity gaps and information gaps.

Tone and Balance[edit]
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[edit]
The content is neutral and the claims presented are unbiased. I believe that multiple perspectives are well represented in this work.

Sources and References[edit]
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?
 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation[edit]
The new content is backed up by multiple reliable sources of information, which are through and current. The sources are diverse and accurate.

Organization[edit]
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[edit]
The content is well written and has no grammatical errors.

Images and Media[edit]
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[edit]
There are no images.

For New Articles Only[edit]
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?

New Article Evaluation[edit]
The article has 2-3 new sources. It has at least 4 sources currently and needs more patterns such as section headings.

Overall impressions[edit]
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[edit]
The content overall is a great start, but needs more information.