User:TOliver9712/Morgan's Canon/Sydneyn23 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? TOliver9712
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: TOliver9712/sandbox

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
- N/A

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
- Content added seems relevant and up-to-date

- Majority of the references seem recent

- Majority of content seems relevant, however the information provided at the beginning of the evaluation section seems a little unnecessary. It would read better if it was added after the statement that morgan's cannon "has played a critical role...". I think this would provide support for why morgan's cannon was significant instead of starting a section off with quotations.

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
- Content is neural and unbiased

- Additions to the article outline both the significance of morgan's canon and the problems with morgan's canon

- Sections are summarized nicely with a final sentence that clearly states the interpretation of behaviour through the perspective of morgan's cannon

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
- Statements of fact are backed up by appropriate sources

- Links work

- A good number of 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
- Content is well written and integrated into the article

- The "competition and external signals" section is a little difficult to follow

- No noticeable grammar or spelling errors

- Reference numbers come after the period in other wikipedia articles, not sure if you would want to change them to fit this format (e.g blah blah blah. [3] instead of blah blah blah[3].)

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
- The one additional image looks good and is well captioned

- Maybe consider adding additional ones since the original article doesn't have any

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?

New Article Evaluation
- NA

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
- Overall the content added does improve the quality of the article

- Information added is very thorough and elaborates on many difference aspects of morgan's cannon that are left out of the original article

- I think simplifying or breaking up some of the content could make it a little easier to read. There is a lot of information provided in a factual way (with lots of links) that creates some confusion for readers. More concise writing could be