User:Samsteen11/The Nuer/Samsteen11 Peer Review

Peer review
his is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing? gbayroon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: page has not been created

Lead[edit]
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? no
 * 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? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? no

Content[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? no
 * Is the content added up-to-date? no
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no

Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? no
 * 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

Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? no
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? no
 * Are the sources current? no
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? no
 * Check a few links. Do they work? no

Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? no
 * 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

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no
 * Are images well-captioned? no
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? no
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no

For New Articles Only[edit]
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? no
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? no
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary inoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? no
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? no

Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? no, I was not able to peer review because nothing was updated
 * What are the strengths of the content added? no
 * How can the content added be improved? no