User:Sydneybelt33/Daniel Mazia/Pchokshi0612 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)
 * Sydneybelt33
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Daniel Mazia

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
My peer has updated the lead and made it better reflect the rest of the article. It includes a good introductory sentence that is concise, but still describes the topic well. The lead includes bits from each major section to introduce the article topic and the following sections. The lead was broad enough, so there was no information not present in the rest of the article and it provides a good gateway into the rest of the article. The lead is concise and not too long in length.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content comes from references that are recent and reliable. The content was added and edited to be up to date. There is no content that does not belong in the article. There is always more content to add to an article, but the main ideas are all in the article and described well.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content did not skew to one position or another. It was very unbiased and neutral in tone.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The content that was added all has reliable references from which the information came from. The sources do reflect the literature and research of this topic. There may be some more current sources available, but the references cited provide valuable information as well. The links that I checked work and lead me to the reliable references.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation
The content is well written and not too wordy. I was able to follow the article easily and I understood the material. The grammar and spelling was good throughout. There were no apparent errors in the article. The content was well organized into different sections and subsections. These sections are referred back to the main points in the leads.

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?

Images and media evaluation
N/A

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The content that was added improved the article greatly and provided more in depth information about broad subjects that had been there before. The content gave more detailed information, so a reader could learn more about the topic and the specific parts. The lead may be able to be increased in length just a little to go more in to depth of the sections that are to follow to give a better idea.