User talk:Nicole Lenz/Fang people /Toni.leigh.jones Peer Review

Nicole Lenz response to review will be in bold

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? Nicole Lenz Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nicole Lenz/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? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead evaluation The lead was not added to and has a good starting point that could use some information pertaining to the subject/ section areas that will addressed. '''This is very true. I was too nervous to mess with the work of the first writer. I honestly thought it was a good enough lead, but I know I need to add to it/ update it''' Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Content evaluation The information added seems relevant to the topic and is seems up to date considering the sources available. I have used a lot of older sources and I've been working on finding some more updated ones. Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Tone and balance evaluation The tone and balance of the article seems neutral and unbiased. Yay! Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Check a few links. Do they work? Sources and references evaluation It appears that some sources are missing and the sources do seem current. '''I'm not sure what sources are missing. I wish the reviewer had referenced to which sections there were missing sources.''' Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? 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? Organization evaluation The content seems to have a good starting point for future work to be done but some expansion to areas is needed. '''Very true. There is a lot of expansion which needs to be done. Some of my sections are just quick notes''' 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? Images and media evaluation The images of this article seem in good shape for enhancing and captions but a few more would be beneficial to adding to appeal. One of the images I tried to add didn't work 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? New Article Evaluation N/A

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? Overall evaluation The overall content appears to have a good outline for future work and additions. Content in the area of Social Dynamics could use some work for a reader to fully understand the material. '''This is a fair review. I only wish the author referred to what sources weren't working. Nevertheless, I appreciate the feedback. I'l go through all the sources and make sure they all work.''' Nicole Lenz (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)