User:SparksCap95/Crochet hook/SparksCap95 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

LGrace2001


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Crochet hook draft


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Crochet hook

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The Lead has not been updated to reflect the new content yet.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead includes an introductory sentence that briefly and clearly describes the subject.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the Lead touches on the article's major subtopics.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic as it discusses crochet hooks with an alternative design that are more accessible.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The added content appears to be up-to-date, but is missing citations to confirm that.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content is missing citations.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, the article deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps since it touches on accessibility in the crocheting community, which is often overlooked.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are viewpoints that are underrepresented, as the new content touches on accessibility in the crocheting world.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of a certain position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The new content does not have any citations so far.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * The new content is not cited, so it cannot be determined.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No sources are present in the new content, and only two sources are used in the current version of the article, so they do not reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No, the sources are not current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * As there are only two authors, there is not a diverse spectrum. The authors do include historically marginalized individuals as both are women.
 * 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 used are of good quality, the article just lacks quantity.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Only the links to other Wikipedia articles appear to work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content added is well-written as it is easy to read and brief.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The new content does not have any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the content-added 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?
 * The current article does include images that enhance understanding of the topic, but a picture of an adaptive crochet hook would be a good inclusion.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the images are well-captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations as they are original work by the author.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, the images are laid out in a visually appealing way.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the content added improves the overall quality of the article by including a subtopic that was completely skipped over -- that of accessibility.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Strengths of the content added are a good mix of sentence structures, its brevity and easiness to read, and its unique subject matter.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The main way that the content can be improved is through the inclusion of citations.