User:Qwertygirl123/Presentence investigation report

Peer review[edit]
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Qwertygirl123
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Qwertygirl123/sandbox

Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No "sections" dialog but there is a "see also"
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This article speaks on misrepresentation of German culture.

Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? No
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? This is written to lean towards understanding German culture by "putting yourself in someone else's shoes", it's not a bad thing but may clash with Wikipedia's neutral stance. Maybe having that stance but wording differently could change that.
 * 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? Yes, to diversify our understanding of Germany and what we think about the Holocaust.

Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Not really, they are from one main author
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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


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

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? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? No, there is a focus on one author
 * 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? No infoboxes but does have a "see also."
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It's a nice S Class article
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is nicely structured. Has a nice introduction and ways to know more about Germany.
 * How can the content added be improved? Try to stay away from persuasive language but everything else is ok.