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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?
- -

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?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?