User:Samczar09/User:Jamieswappy/sandbox/Samczar09 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? Jamieswappy/sandbox
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Jamieswappy/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? It has been updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Most of the sections have introductory sentences that describe the topic well.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does describe what is going to be talked about mostly. There are some parts that they don't make a discription however.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No the lead does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No, I feel that the lead is pretty concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, as much as it can be.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is some content missing, however this is their draft.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? It is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, it all seems purely factual.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I don't think so.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I don't believe their content attempts to favor any position, just to inform.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, they had many sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There is one source that would seem yo be a biased article, called "The ERA is a Moral Issue" however they do not use bias in their writing. Their sources seem to be credible.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, they are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is concise and easy to read. There are some vocabulary that should be more clear for the universal mind, so that everyone can understand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? It looks grammatically correct.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is well-organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, it includes an image of a Utah Women who helped in politics.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, the caption was well to inform.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, it adheres.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, it is laid out to look appealing.

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? Yes, it has many secondary sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes is represents accurately the literature the writers are including.
 * 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, there are all the headings and infoboxes readily available.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, there are a few links to other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I feel like when this article is finished it will be very useful and complete in it's inclusions. However I feel like they need to make sure they start on their Introduction paragraph.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The make sure that they are well cited. They also make a good and descriptive biography of the people mentioned in the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? They could improve on their universal language, and make sure they are making the reader understand well what they mean.