User:Tyler Borschnack/Nancy Carrasco/Graceatkinson 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)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Carl5129/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? Yes, what does long professor mean though?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? not exactly, bring up what you're going to talk about like her early life and career.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? no it is good.

==== Lead evaluation: Overall I think that the lead is well written and tells me about her and her accomplishments. I think that you need to explain more of what you are going to talk about in the article though. ====

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

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no I think everything is very neutral
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think that you could maybe try to find more for her personal life to add.
 * 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
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * 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? I think the content written is pretty good, I think you could clarify or make the leading sentence more clear and simple.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I can tell.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Sections are good.

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?

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 think the article is very good and thorough and the sections are good and clear.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think the strengths of this article is her career. There is a lot of good information in that section.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think just read through it and make it more clear. Maybe even add more to her personal life.