User:Fabiola Zayas/Criminal psychology/Nilmariliz Peer Review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) I am reviewing Fabiola Zayas's article.
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Fabiola Zayas/Criminal psychology

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? --The introductory sentence of the lead is a very concise and clear opening that clarifies what is the main topic of the article. It clearly specifies what criminal psychology is, thus giving a central idea of what the entire article is about.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? --There is a content table that contains the different themes of the article, but the lead doesn't have a description of the different sections to be discussed in it. It contains a very complete explanation of what is related to criminal psychology and how these psychologists participate in the legal arena, but it does not include which are the other sections of the article.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? --No, I consider the lead is a general description or introduction that later on the other sections will be explained with more detail.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? --It is very concise and specific, it goes straight to the point. Maybe it could include a little bit of information (as an introduction) of each article section.

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? -- I consider all the content of the article is relevant to the topic, there is no other information unnecessary or redundant.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? -- All the content of the article is based on different important aspects of what is necessary to be a criminal psychologist, how a criminal psychologist is related to the legal system, its different roles and other information related to the topic and because of this I consider there is no unnecessary information in the article.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? -- Some parts of the article are quite neutral but others are very detailed. For example, the profiling section is kind of specific and well explained while the applied criminal psychology section is very neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? --No, the article contains concrete and informative content. It doesn't inclines to a particular position.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? -- No, the content is not persuasive, it just informs and explains the main topic, criminal psychology.

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?
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? --Yes, I consider the content is very clear, specific and has valuable information that complements the topic and some of the areas it covers.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? -- Personally, I haven't notice any grammatical or spelling errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media. The article doesn't have any images.

• 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?

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? -- I consider the theme of this article is very abundant and there is a lot of information of it, so all content in the article is very valuable and beneficial because it makes a better one and improves its quality.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?