User:Cbogart1/Women in Austria/PixelatedCodex 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? Cbogart1
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Women in Austria

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
• 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? Yes
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Seems concise

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? No, everything seems to belong

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Slightly, one side is explained a little bit better than the other side. However, overall I'd say each side is represented
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoint of the effort being counterproductive could be described a little more. I'm not sure exactly why they believe it to be counterproductive.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, I don't believe it is trying to sway the reader either way.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The sources do appear reliable
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They do appear thorough
• Are the sources current? Yes, the sources seem to be up to date.
• Check a few links. Do they work? There are no links in the article. The links in the sources work correctly.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is slightly confusing, but overall I'd say it's well written
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There aren't any spelling or grammatical mistakes.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the topic was organized well.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no
• 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

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? Yes, I would say it contributes to the subject and helps inform the reader on a broader perspective than what was there before.
• What are the strengths of the content added? It introduces an entirely new idea to the topic. And is very relevant to the main article.
• How can the content added be improved? A little more explanation about how the infastructure changes were positive or negative would have been interesting.

Overall evaluation

Overall I'd say they did a good job adding on to the page. The information was interesting, and informative. The references appeared reliable. And it improved the page it was added to.