User:ShaynaSaltzburg/Wunderbar Syracuse/Anais Mejia Peer Review

General info
Spark0141 & ShaynaSaltzburg
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:ShaynaSaltzburg/Wunderbar Syracuse
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * NONE.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The article is made up of all new content and the lead does a good job introducing the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * I think the introduction sentence is good but could be more specific to Wunderbar.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does not include a description of the articles major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No it doesn't include any information that is not elaborated on within the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise but the authors should consider changing the first sentence and mentioning the subsections within the lead. I also think it should mention that it is currently closed within the lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * All of the content within the article is relevant to the topic being discussed in the article, in this case Wunderbar.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content that was used for the article was all up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All the content appears to belong as it is relevant to the topic and the subsections that are within the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I think that the article does deal with Wikipedias equity gaps as the entire article is discussing a space within the city that is related to the LGBTQ+ community which is historically underrepresented.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content within the article is all neutral and does not attempt to sway the reader in one direction or another.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims within the article that appear to be biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are no viewpoints that I thought were over or under represented within the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * None of the content attempts to persuade the reader in favor of any position. The content is all neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, but there should be more sources to back up all the information and/or they should use the "reuse" citation function so the reader knows that the information comes from a previously cited source.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes, the content accurately reflects what the source say.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No the sources are not thorough, the authors should add more sources to reflect the available literature.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources used are all current and are all still applicable to the article currently.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I think the sources. are not very diverse but there are also very few sources, so if the authors add more sources I think they can achieve more diversity within the authors of the sources.
 * 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.)
 * The sources are very sparse and while they look like good sources, I think the authors should consider adding more sources to boost the credibility of their article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links I checked all work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is well written and easy for the reader to follow. I did not have any difficulty following the article and thought the sections were effectively organized to create a good flow.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There were no grammar or spelling errors within the article to my knowledge.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is all well organized and the sections have relevant information within them.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The content is contributing to the creation of an entirely new article, which means the authors are contributing to making a brand new wikipedia page on their topic.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content are that it's well written and well organized, making the article easy to follow.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The authors should be better about citing sources and they should change the first sentence to make it more specific!