User:SSalley2022/Lisa Ng/Mereno1 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? (provide username)
 * SSalley2022
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Lisa Ng

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * no
 * 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
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * concise
 * concise

Lead evaluation
There probably needs to be a little bit more information in the lead, and the article could use more sections to organize the information in the article.

Content
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?
 * could provide more content because the article is not very long or detailed
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * yes

Content evaluation
It could be useful if more information was added. The information that is currently there is good, though.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no
 * 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?
 * no

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is not bias in any way.

Sources and References
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?
 * yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * no, link under reference 4 does not exist

Sources and references evaluation
The link under reference 4 does not exist, but everything else looks good.

Organization
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?
 * no

Organization evaluation
The organization needs to be better. There is only one section. The information is well organized and easy to read within that section, though.

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

no images


 * 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 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
not 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?
 * not yet
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * citations are good
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * add more, organize better by adding more sections

Overall evaluation
Overall, the information is good but more information would be good. Adding more sections/ organizing the article would be good.