User:Sarahshealy/Concept/BlandK 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)
 * Sarahshealy and MollyMYZ
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:MollyMYZ/sandbox/Concept draft

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * I don't think the part about physicalism was added to the lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yeah
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yeah
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? i don't think so
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? it's a bit on the longer side but there is a lot of information in this article so idk that much can be done about that.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? idk anything about concept and physicalism but I'm going to assume so
 * prototype theory for sure, yeah
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? not that i know of

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * 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
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, they have added sources and they all appear to be reliable
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * 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? yes

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? I like what you did with prototype theory!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? strengths, imo, would be the prototype theory section. I like the division of the first section into two different subsections
 * How can the content added be improved? maybe fix up the lead?