User:Roblucaswoodruff/Margaret D. Foster/Wroan808 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? (Roblucaswoodruff)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Margaret D. Foster

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes the Lead information matches the other info they currently have on the page.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes the title sentence is on topic and provides a simple introduction.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes it has a list of sections you can jump to.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No the lead information is very basic and covers what is already written.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is short and to the point.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes the content is relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes the content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is some content missing it seems like? Maybe room for more info.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It covers basic topics and creates a knowledgeable article overall.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes the content is very neutral and without bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No there is not.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There is a wide variety of info that doesn't stay on one topic for too long.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No it doesn't.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yeah the information present is cited accordingly by reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes they reflect the literature they have used.
 * Are the sources current?
 * sources are up to date
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources seem diverse enough to be able to cover many of the information that is needed for the article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content that has been written so far is precise and to the point.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No there is no grammatical errors I can see.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Content is well organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes there is an image of the topic person.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The image is proper captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I am unsure, there isn't a full copyright statement for the photo provided.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes they are well organized and visually appealing.

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 impressions7/10 (needs a bit more content)
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * add more info and other sections to your page if the info is provided to do so.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Well written, precise and credible.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Add more of the content, expand on it.