User:Maschristi/Agatha Bacelar/Peterorfanos 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? maschristi
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Maschristi/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • The article does not have a clear lead.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • There are a couple paragraphs introducing her
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • No, the lead does not but could outline the major sections much better

Lead evaluation

Lead of the article is up to you to make because it is a new article so try to give more of a general summation of her and her career/beliefs.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, the content is relevant.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes, content added is up to date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • I think adding more on liquid democracy could help out your article a lot!

Content evaluation

Content is overall relevant and necessary for her Wikipedia page but should reference more on liquid democracy as that is her main political device/what she is know for.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes, content is not bias in anyway.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, no claims are made to seem biased.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No, no viewpoints are over or under represented.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No, even though you talk about the race you do a good job of not trying to convince the reader to vote for her.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

There are no sources in the additions to the article.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes, content sounds professional and is written very well.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No grammatical or spelling errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes, I believe the content is well-organized because it separates background and political history well.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

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?
  • There are no sources included.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
  • No sources.
• 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?
  • No, not really.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
  • Article does not link to other articles.

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?

Overall evaluation

The content written is all new as it is a new article and the content written is all relevant. Please include citations and separate your article into concise sections that easily guide the reader. Adding a piece about liquid democracy would also be pretty useful.