User:Lizzethmancilla/Family disruption/Maggiehoang Peer Review

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)
  • Lizzethmancilla
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:Lizzethmancilla/Family disruption

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes. There are sources about the different kinds of disruptions and deleted the non relevant details.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes. The first sentence introduces the article clearly with the definition.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • There is no description with all of the disruptions but the sources are included next to it, which is significant.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No the information is all relevant.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • It looks concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes. They are content pulled from the lead.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • There are a few that is in the 1980s/1990s.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • No. They all are relevant to the article.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes. The content added are majority information, not persuasion tone.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No. There aren't convincing sentences, it is neutral.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No. The content all has a fair amount. There's a few that are blank (could be for the next editor).
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No. There is no position.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes. The sources are from academic articles.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes. They are. They look like they are in the same topic.
• Are the sources current?
  • Some are current.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes. A few do not provide a link.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • It is. the information is easy to read and interesting.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • I have not noticed any.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
• Yes. The different content makes it easier to read.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • No images
• Are images well-captioned?
  • No.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • -
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • -

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?

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?