User talk:Paola Rios L/Virtual internship/Gustavo.lopez7 Peer Review

General info Whose work are you reviewing? (Paola Rios L) Link to draft you're reviewing: User: Paola Rios L/Virtual internship 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: When you read the Lead you will know what is the main topic of this article. It also includes a brief description of what is the main idea of the article. All the information provided in the Lead is present in the article and is very concise. 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? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Content evaluation: All the content added in the article is relevant and up-to-date. There´s no information missing or that doesn´t belong to it. The main tone of the article is neutral, it doesn´t talk about underrepresented populations, is nos racist, homophobic, or else. 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 add to attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Tone and balance evaluation: The content added to the article is neutral, which means that there are no claims biased toward any position. All the viewpoints are well written in a neutral position. 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? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Check a few links. Do they work? Sources and references evaluation: All the information provided in the sandbox is backed up by reliable sources, these sources are up-to-date and also they all work. Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content add 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 added is well-written, it doesn´t have grammatical or spelling errors, and it's well-organized, broken down into different parts. 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 content added in the Sandbox will improve the original article on Wikipedia. This Sandbox writing is neutral, confident, and serious. I need to say that is a great job, keep going in this same way and your Wikipedia article will be improved in a great way. Gustavo.lopez7 (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)