User:Tyler Borschnack/Nancy Carrasco/LukieW 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? Tyler Borschnack, Megan Carlson, Erianna Conrad, Katianna Feldewerd
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tyler Borschnack/Nancy Carrasco

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Looking at the difference between Nancy Carrasco's current article to now, there has been little change done. Not only is Carassco's article a wasteland of generic, useless info, this draft contains nothing but links to the research they have been planning to apply to Carrasco's article - which, as far as I know, hasn't been done yet.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It does not.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does not.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It does, but only links information rather than writing itself out.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's only research links.

Lead evaluation
There is only links.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? There's nothing but research links.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? As far as I can tell, yes? They use articles such as her Yale profile and recent writings dating from 2015 to 2017, but some of these articles are inaccessible writings.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It's just links.

Content evaluation
There are only links.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? There has been nothing added but links, but the original articles seem unbiased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not as far as I can tell from these links.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Nope, because this draft doesn't have any words of their own.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? See above answer.

Tone and balance evaluation
No biased tone with only links.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, they do. However, their secondary sources don't go into as much as depth that is any different from the original article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Primary sources, yes. Secondary sources, no.
 * Are the sources current? As far as I can tell, yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
There are sources, yet we don't see how they are applied to the article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There is no writing. Only links.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are only links.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? They didn't even bother organizing the links from primary to secondary, so no.

Organization evaluation
There is no organization. Only links.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images, only article links.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * 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
There is no media.

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? No, this entire draft is only links and no writing.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? More information, yet it is useless when the information is not written out.
 * How can the content added be improved? By actually writing the article instead of simply posting links.

Overall evaluation
I know this review was a bit cold, but there is a lack of... anything. There is no article written for this draft. There's nothing to analyze. I apologize, but there is nothing to comment upon. All I can ask is for them to eventually write up their article in-depth.