User:Samarthsbhatt/New eugenics/Katelynneller 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? Roamorin
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: New eugenics

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 new content is reflected in the Lead, but it is unclear if the Lead was updated by the editor. The Lead has a good introductory sentence that describes New Eugenics, stating several synonyms for the same word. Additionally, this sentence is clear and concise. The Lead does not describe the sections that are included within the article. The Lead is perhaps too concise, as it does not describe the sections of the article. However, there are very few sections of the article to describe. Expanding the article would likely lead to an improved introduction. There is not extraneous information. However, the Lead does name Nicholas Agar, without describing much about him or his role in New Eugenics aside from his role in New Eugenics being termed "liberal eugenics."

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?

Content evaluation
The editor added a citation to an existing statement within the article. The content added was relevant, but was from an article published in 1999, so a more recent source might be more valuable.

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 editor added a citation to an existing phrase that was neutral. The claim that the citation supports does not appear to be biased or to be an attempt to persuade the reader in one direction or another.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The source added is not current, as it is from 1999. Perhaps a more recent source would be of value. The link to the source is functional.

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 supported by the added citation is well-written, without errors.

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
No images or media were added.

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
The article was not new.

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?

Overall evaluation
The added content accurately supports a statement made in the existing article. The content could be improved if it was a more recent citation.