User:QueenStarrUniverse/Competence factor/Dylansalas Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

QueenStarrUniverse


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:QueenStarrUniverse/Competence factor


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead


 * The lead presents the new information that is being added to this article. The article is being composed from scratch, and the lead does a good job at introducing what the body of the article could go into more details about.
 * The introductory sentence gives a good overview of the topic without going into too much detail, so that the actual details can be discussed later.
 * The lead gives a peek into what the rest of the article could talk about.
 * There is not a lot of content in the body of the article, but going into details about what the lead mentions could produce a long body section.
 * The lead is concise.

Content


 * All of the content added is relevant to competence factors.
 * This content is up to date.
 * The content that is present is useful and pertinent to the article's topic.
 * This article does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance


 * The content added is neutral/unbiased.
 * The content added does not possess any claims that are biased toward a particular position.
 * All of the viewpoints presented are represented in appropriate proportions.
 * The content added informs the reader without trying to persuade them towards a particular side.

Sources and References


 * There is one statement at the end of the lead that does not have a link to a source.
 * Based on the titles of the sources, the content does reflect what the sources say because they are all dealing with competence.
 * Adding more sources would improve the validity of the article. There are thousands of articles that have "competence factors" in the name, according to Google Scholar, and I bet some of them contain information that could be used to advance this article.
 * The majority of the sources were published within the last few years, so most of the information presented is current.
 * The sources are probably written by people who have a background in the field, like students in master's programs and PhD programs.
 * All of the sources that are used in the article are taken from peer-reviewed journals or books that have been peer-reviewed.
 * All of the links to the websites for the articles from the peer-reviewed journals work. The ISBN for the book is accurate.

Organization


 * The content is clear and contains useful information, but the sentences could be shortened by using more concise language.
 * There are a few minor grammatical errors that are simple and easy to fix.
 * The content added is split up into clear paragraphs that appropriately separate the information.

Images and Media


 * This article does not contain any images or media.

For New Articles Only


 * The article contains 4 reliable sources, above the 3 required secondary sources needed to meet the notability requirement.
 * The list of sources is quite short, but there are a lot of articles with information about this topic that could be used.
 * This article doesn't link to other articles, adding a link to what natural competence is would probably help readers to better understand this topic, since it is a component of that.

Overall Impressions


 * This content has improved the quality of this article and made it more complete, especially since the article didn't exist before this group started working on it.
 * The content that has been added lays a good foundation for what the rest of the article can talk about. This sounds like a broad topic, which is good because there is a lot of information to draw from while composing this article.
 * The biggest way that this article can be improved is by adding length. There is not a lot to improve so far because of the length of the article.