User:Ronismith9/Cornell-Peru Project/StefaniCastaneda 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? (Ronismith9)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

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
The article is clearly stated within the first sentence and is written with enough information that I am able to understand what it is about. The Lead isn't overly detailed and has the right amount of information for this type of paragraph.

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 information added to the article stays within the topic that it is discussed and there is no content that is not related to the topic. The content seems to be up-to-date and there is no information missing in regards to the article.

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 tone of the article is neutral and there isn't any content that clearly directs toward any opposition or agreement to the topic. There isn't any evidence of any persuation involved in the article as it stays informative. There is no bias in the article that indicates the author is particularly in favor or against this topic. There aren't any viewpoints that overly represented or underrepresented in the article.

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
The content seems to be supported by liable sources of information as one source is a scholarly article and the other is a book. The sources are current and the literature does reflect on the topic. The links do work as I am able to see both readings.

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 really easy to read and i am able to comprehend the topic throughout the article. There are some minor grammatical errors. I would suggest adding commas before and after Allan Holmberg and Luis Valcarcel and Dr. Julio Pereya.

.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
There are no images or any type of media included in the article.

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
I believe that the article does meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements and is supported by reliable secondary sources. Even though the articles are few, there is enough information. The article doesn't follow any similar patterns to others. There are several links connected to the article that can help it become discoverable.

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?