User:Tweber9/User:Emilyrs3/sandbox/Tweber9 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) Emilyrs3
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Emilyrs3/sandbox&action=edit&section=10

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, but it was a little confusing in the introduction.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise and the details are seen in the sections below the introduction.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, there was a little lack of Utah history with the ERA.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * It could use more current information from the Utah and LDS culture.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * 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, it is well supported by evidence.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are available.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, they are current and reliable.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links provided work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It could be easier to read, but most of the article is well-written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are a few run-on sentences and a few misspelled words.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The organization is very well done and clear with the intentions of the article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * I really enjoyed the pictures, they were one of my favorite parts of the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * They are well-captioned and give context as well as an important evidence.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, they adhere to the copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes and they coordinate with the correct sections.

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?