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? (provide username) Edrakakipeterson
• Link to draft you're reviewing: ASD

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? Yes
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Not overly detailed, it is concise.

Lead evaluation

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? There is lots of content about different topics.

Content evaluation

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Information is neutral.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, sources checked were appropriate.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources correlate.
• Are the sources current? Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links checked worked appropriately.

Sources and references evaluation

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Katerina's worked was not able to be published.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No grammatical errors were found.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article was broken down into many sections.

Organization evaluation

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? Yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes
• 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? Yes
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

New Article Evaluation

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Please see overall eval comment below.
• What are the strengths of the content added? Please see overall eval comment below.
• How can the content added be improved? Please see overall eval comment below.

Overall evaluation: If Katerina's work could have been published the article would have been enjoyable to read! Her writings are always wonderful.