User:GamersRightsActivist/Mexican American Political Association/Briannamck8 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? (provide username)
  • GamersRightsActivist
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • Mexican American Political Association

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, although the second sentence could be made more clear
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • It only gives a definition of the organization rather than a summary of the article
• 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 very concise. It could have a bit more information if needed

Lead evaluation

Good

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • It is hard to see what has been added. It seems as though the edits have mostly been adding sources and reworking where things are positioned in the article.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • The structure and tactics sections could be expanded upon as they do not have a lot of information in the sections.

Content evaluation

Needs development

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 over represented, or underrepresented?
  • There could be more viewpoints from people involved with the organization
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No

Tone and balance evaluation

Good

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Some sources are missing from either information that was added or their previously
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Could have a broader array of sources
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes

Sources and references evaluation

Needs development

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?
  • No
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • List of presidents could be moved to the end

Organization evaluation

Good

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

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?

New Article Evaluation

N/A

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • The article still needs more work and expansion.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • There was mostly sources added
• How can the content added be improved?
  • The sections are all still relatively undeveloped. There could also be images added to the source to make it more visually appealing.

Overall evaluation

Good, but needs more development.