User:Sambrooker619/Social Institutions and Gender Index/Sjburton18 Peer Review

User:Sambrooker619/sandbox
The edit does a good job first introducing the idea, then defining what it is, then giving examples of it. It then allows the reader to further understand the ideas by defining and giving examples of each category of SIGI. Then also explains on a numerical basis how the rating of these categories work. The edit does a good job helping the reader understand the ideas of SIGI, while also providing examples. The edit adds and expands to the ideas of the original article, expanding on the ideas presented while also providing new information. All of the data and facts used are relatively new and up to date, and many sources are provided. The ideas presented are generally neutral and do not seem to side with any certain views. The only thing missing is media. Possibly some sort of map showing the SIGI ratings across the globe could help the reader comprehend where these ratings are low/high. Maybe also expanding on where low/high ratings are seen in the edit could help the reader understand possibly patterns across the globe. Tying together a pattern of where there are low/high ratings could lead the reader to understand what may be the cause of low/high ratings. Generally the edits do a good job of expanding on what is already present in the article. The editor takes what is already present and expands on it to allow the reader have a deeper understanding of the categories and rankings of SIGI.

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:

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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 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?