User:Hankhankwch/Zerlina Maxwell/Khernandez210 Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, they have done a great job so far adding new content to the article.
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, they start off explaining who they will be speaking about.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, they display the different sections of the article with contents.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, It includes what is described so far.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is relevant
Is the content added up-to-date? The information inputted is up to date.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content displayed is not missing anything

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes it is.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? More about her career could be talked about. (Could be because it is just a draft at the moment!)
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not, it speaks about the information in a neutral way while still explaining her background information.

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? They use new links to add onto the new information.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current? They are the ones most up-to-date.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they do work.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is concise, and very easy to read.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? To my understanding the grammar has no errors.
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes they are broken down into sections a reader can easily understand. I

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? It has one image that shows the main person of the article
Are images well-captioned? It does not have a caption
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes they do
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, and more can be added if they wish, in order to add onto the article.

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?

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes it definitely has leveled up in quality.
What are the strengths of the content added? It went into depth with describing the main person of the article, while describing other important details that were left out from the original article.
How can the content added be improved? Just add more information and images for the final article!

Great job adding to the original article.