User talk:Mcwright1981/sandbox

Don't forget to cite your sources. I'm still concerned about how/what your improvement adds to the original page. But, maybe I'm looking at the wrong draft? If so, send me the link to any other draft(s). ProfHanley (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review
Guiding questions: •          Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, there is a slight change in the lead. •          Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, there is a concise introduction to the article’s topic. •          Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, there is article section with an info box. •          Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No. •          Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes, it's concise Content Guiding questions: •          Is the content added relevant to the topic? Somewhat. •          Is the content added up-to-date? Somewhat. •          Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No •          Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No to both questions.

Tone and Balance •          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? Neither, it's mostly neutral. •          Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. Guiding questions: •          Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. •          Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes. •          Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. •          Are the sources current? Yes. •          Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No to both. •          Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) •          Check a few links. Do they work? There's only one, it works. Organization Guiding questions: •          Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It could use some brushing up. •          Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? •          Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The picture added is visually pleasing. Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media •          Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, 2 in total. •          Are images well-captioned? •          Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes •          Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. •          How can the content added be improved? Yes, it can use more articles and sources.

P.S.
Apologies for the format! I'm not familiar with source editing and Wikipedia won't allow me to switch to Visual Editor