User:Tayat1/African American Geneology/Coolalec909 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? Tayat1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tayat1/sandbox

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? Yes!
 * 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? Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Totally!
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It is up to date! I would say most of her sources come from the last five years- very recent.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No that I could see.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I would say it deals with underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? I feel so, yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I didn't really feel like there were, it mostly was just stating facts from their sources.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No. They had an entire section that talked about genealogy in general, but I felt like it was necessary to be in the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

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 they are.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources do have diversity. Yes they do.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. I felt it was simple and informative.
 * 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? Yes they are.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes they are.

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? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes, I feel like they have an adequate amount of sources.
 * 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? Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It just gives it more detail.
 * How can the content added be improved? I like the simplicity, but maybe just add a bit more to give it more detail? I don't really know, I think it's great!