User:Mya.white/Auditory imagery/Sami.kasting Peer Review

Peer review[edit]

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? I do not believe the lead has been updated, but it did mention some information about research directions.
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead does include a good introductory sentence, it is clear and concise.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the lead includes a brief description of what the major sections of the article will be.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead includes information that is found throughout the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Personally, I think it is a bit long, but I don't think it is overly detailed.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant.
Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the content is up-to-date.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No content is missing and all belongs.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, does not deal with and equity gap and does not include topics regarding historically underrepresented populations.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added is neutral.
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, no persuasion.

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all cited sources have a reliable source to back them up.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, all of the sources in the bibliography are thorough.
Are the sources current? Yes, the sources are current.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, they are by a variety of different authors and they do contain marginalized individuals when possible.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links work.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content is easy to read, clear, and concise.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No errors.
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

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

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?