User:Tanzakili1/Theatre and disability/Yonna95 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? (Tanzakili1)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tanzakili1/Theatre and disability

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise

Lead evaluation
Overall brief and short

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No very straight to the point.

Content evaluation
The peer kept it short added important information but

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no very neutral
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think underrepresented of disability mimicry, maybe shows specific to that viewpoint.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is neutral and well balance just add an example or two.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
Peer could add at least 1/2 more sources

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Kind of, I wish it had more sections

Organization evaluation
Could add a few more sources etc

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation
Add a couple of pictures, show us what disability in theatre looks like

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? I would not say improve, but definitely add something I did not know
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths in this content is the subheadings which are very interesting
 * How can the content added be improved? This content can be improve by adding more sources, examples of shows (through links or pictures) find articles.

Overall evaluation
Add more