User talk:TeresaVarrialeGonzalez/sandbox

General info
Whose work are you reviewing? TeresaVarrialeGonzalez Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TeresaVarrialeGonzalez/sandbox

Lead evaluation
Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?: N/A Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: N/A Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?: N/A Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: N/A Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: N/A
 * I am assuming you are contributing to an article, therefore questions about the 'Lead' are irrelevant.

Content evaluation
Is the content added relevant to the topic?: Most of the content is relevant to the topic. There are a few sections I will address in the third question that do not belong on Wikipedia. Is the content added up-to-date?: Yes, the content has been published with the past 20 years. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: The following sections do not belong: "Why I was Interested...", "Wikipedia and..." "Conclusions and suggestions..."

Tone and Balance evaluation
Is the content added neutral?: Yes, all content is neutral. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?: No, I did not find biased claims in the article. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: No, there are not. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?: No, the content is not persuasive towards a position.

Sources and References evaluation
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?: Yes, they are. The sources are not formatted in Wikipedia. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?: The sources appear to reflect the available literature. Are the sources current?: Yes, they are current. Check a few links. Do they work?: There are not any links in the article.

Organization evaluation
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content it well-written, clear, and easy to read. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?: No, there are not grammatical or spelling errors present. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?: It is well-organized. I believe there is some overlap between the section on "Challenges in..." and "Cross-language concerns in QR".

Images and Media evaluation
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?: No images included. 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

New Article Evaluation
Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?: Yes. How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?: The bibliography includes many articles. 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?: The article is in Sandbox editing stages to it is unclear at this time. Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?: It is not linked to other articles as far as I can tell.

Overall Impressions
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?: The article provides a complete overview of the challenges associated with cross-language in qualitative research. What are the strengths of the content added?: The content is clear and objective. There are many terms involved with this research topic, and they are all defined. How can the content added be improved?: I would recommend removing the section on research process, adding citations in Wikipedia's format, and adding links to other articles.

Final Words
Teresa - I really enjoyed reading your work. I left some suggestions in response to the above questions that I hope are helpful. Thank you for sharing your work on this topic - it is very interesting! Special-educator2020 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)special-educator2020