User:SamPaskuski/Janis Irwin/ZioinQueenT 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)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

I am reviewing the article of Janis Irwin which belongs to the username SamPaskuski

this is the link to the draft I will be reviewing User:SamPaskuski/Janis Irwin

Lead
Guiding questions:

There doesn't seem to be a lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? -- There doesn't seem to be a proper lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? --- the article doesn't seem to have 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? --- no it doesn't  seem to include a brief description of the article major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?--- there doesn't seem to be much of a lead
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - Lead could be more concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?-The content is relevant to topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date?-- The content is up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? content about her personal life and early childhood is mising

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?  The content added by the user is neutral in nature
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? there are no claims that appear to be heavily biased toward a particular person.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?-- There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another?-- The content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another ?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? --- yes, the content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of infromation
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? --- There is more information on this politician that should be added, the sources could be more thorough.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current
 * Check a few links. Do they work?        the links for the article do work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? ---The content added is well written and concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? --The content does not 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? -there were sections and lacked organization of information.

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

This user did not add any images or media, hence the guiding questions pertaining to images and media can not be answered.


 * 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?

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? ---The article meets wikipedia's notability requirements and has 2-3 secondary sources independent of the subject.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The sources are not exhaustive enough, as there is more available literature that can be added to 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?--- yes they do
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? ---yes it does

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content added has improved the overall quality of the article as it seems more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content really highlights the position held by the female politician
 * How can the content added be improved? More content on personal life in terms of family, children or lack off, childhood and achivements etc could be included

Overall evaluation
There are very reliable sources that have been used but more information can be found on this politician. Don't be afraid to also search twitter fro more information about her in general