User:SydneyL23/Grant writing/Bl00burry19 Peer Review

General info
SydneyL23
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:SydneyL23/Grant writing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Grant writing

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 

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Lead should be reviewed to include context for new heading "Grant writers/Career," in which article delves into the history of grant writing and not only the process, which is currently implied in the Lead.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Lead was not edited in user draft, current introductory sentence in original article summarizes topic and content well.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Lead includes broad description of the process of grant writing, may be revised to provide brief description of new heading Grant writers/Career.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

''Unclear if draft edits in "Background" are intended to replace entire section in original article or add revisions. If adding additional information, Lead is still effective in describing information concisely. If replacing entire article Background section, significant information in Lead has been cut out of the article.''

Lead in original article discusses "grantsmanship," not clearly discussed in article content.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

User did not edit Lead; current lead is relatively concise and describes article content accurately.

 Content 

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, article edits add valuable information to topic of grant writing.

Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, article edits cite 2019 source and includes recent information.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

All of article edits fit into existing content.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Article provides inclusive information,