User:Scout26/Douglas McGregor/Ssims11 Peer Review

General info
Scout26
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Scout26/Douglas McGregor
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * User:Scout26/Douglas McGregor

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * There is no lead on the article

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, he added theory x and theory y. Theories that were not in before.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it seems to be up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content missing that I can tell.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? there are no gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, this is neutral content.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not that I am aware.
 * 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, he cited the sources he used.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes, he referred to the number one listed source. "Carson, Charles M. (2005-03). "A historical view of Douglas McGregor's Theory Y". Management Decision. 43 (3): 450–460."
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they do.
 * Are the sources current? Yes they are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? It is one author, Charles Carson.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Not that I have found.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? They all work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is well worded.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No errors that I have noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is broken down into sections that are 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 gives the readers a sense of who he actually is and what he looks like.
 * Are images well-captioned? It is okay. It is simply captioned "Douglas McGregor". It could have added when the picture was taken. That is the only thing that I would add.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? They are good.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? It is well placed.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the article is more complete. Adding the image and the extra theories makes this article better. He also organized it better than the original.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The picture adds a lot. Makes it feel a lot more complete and professional.
 * How can the content added be improved? I'm not sure what else could be added. This is a complete article for Douglas McGregor.