User:Vpritchard/User:Vpritchard/Foxhound/Jfinlay8 Peer Review

General info
==
 * Whose work are you reviewing?: Vpritchard
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Vpritchard/Foxhound ==

Lead
== Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * 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? For the most part, 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? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I'm sure there's things to be added.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? 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? Disposition is a bit underrepresented.
 * 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? Blogs.pitch.com is probably not a great source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Mostly
 * Are the sources current? Yes, mostly
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? 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? 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? Yes ==

Overall impressions
== Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, but could use more. For example on the other diseases they're prone to get.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Adds more depth.
 * How can the content added be improved? Just adding more. Also changing the lead so it'll reflect more of the article. ==