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?
No
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
The Lead is concise and sufficiently detailed.
Lead evaluation
Content
Guiding questions:
Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Yes
Is the content added up-to-date?
Yes; content added from end of November 2019.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
No
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?
No
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
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Yes
Are the sources current?
Yes
Check a few links. Do they work?
Yes
Sources and references evaluation
Organization
Guiding questions:
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Yes
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Yes
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Yes
Organization evaluation
Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
N/a
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
Images and media 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?
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?
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?
Yes
What are the strengths of the content added?
Very clear and concise; content is relevant
How can the content added be improved?
Political activity section could be broken into sub-headings according to category (e.g. Education, criticism, etc.)
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?
No
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
The Lead is concise and sufficiently detailed.
Lead evaluation
Content
Guiding questions:
Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Yes
Is the content added up-to-date?
Yes; content added from end of November 2019.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
No
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?
No
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
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Yes
Are the sources current?
Yes
Check a few links. Do they work?
Yes
Sources and references evaluation
Organization
Guiding questions:
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Yes
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Yes
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Yes
Organization evaluation
Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
N/a
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
Images and media 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?
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?
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?
Yes
What are the strengths of the content added?
Very clear and concise; content is relevant
How can the content added be improved?
Political activity section could be broken into sub-headings according to category (e.g. Education, criticism, etc.)