User:Quackdon/Man-on-the-side attack/Imakespaghetti29 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? Quackdon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Link

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: Assuming the part about the definition of Man-on-the-side attack is the article Lead; the Lead is very well written. It introduces the topic clearly and gives the reader the context they need to understand the rest of the article. Currently, the lead is missing a brief description of the article's major sections as described in the outline; and includes information not present in the article. The lead is slightly overly detailed (again, if the definition portion is the article Lead).

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

Content evaluation: The content added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. There are some topics that are mentioned in the outline that haven't been described yet; but the outline is very strong and covers all there is to know about the topic. There is no information that does not belong, all information is relevant. The article does not deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

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 content added is neutral; and there aren't any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. No views are overrepresented or underrepresented. The content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another, i.e., it is very objective and articulate.

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?
 * 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: Not citations have been added yet, so a list of sources and references is unavailable.

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 clear and easy to read; and there are no visible grammatical or spelling errors. The outline shows that the content will be broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic and will be well-organized; but the current draft needs more of those sections.

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: No images or media has been added yet.

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?

New Article Evaluation: The author is not working on a new article.

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 overall quality of the article and makes it more complete; since, as the author mentions, the current article on man-on-the-side attack is fairly new and consists only an introduction to the topic. The strengths of the content are that the paragraphs are the right length, and the sentences are structured in a way that provide an easy to follow flow of information. The content is also unbiased and article; i.e., the tone is "encyclopedic." The article can be improved by fleshing out the outline and adding more content relating to the topics mentioned in the outline. All the best!