User:Adrian829/Gaik Ovakimian/Petav.Jarl 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)
 * Adrian829
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Adrian829/Gaik Ovakimian

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes- The existing article did not have a lead, a new one was created.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes- The Lead tells the reader who Gaik Ovakimian was and that he was a Soviet spy.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes- mentions his assignments, his arrest in the United States, his return to Russia, and his departure from the NKVD.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No- the lead accurately gives the reader an overview of the topic of the article, as well as descriptions of the articles sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise as it should be, it does not go too much into detail about the contents of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes- It adds further detail that the original article was lacking in.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, this article refers to a historical figure, so there is not much that would "change" per se.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I wouldn't say that there is content missing necessarily, but the article could use a little more detail in the Germany section for instance.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, it impartially describes Gaik Ovakimian and his role in Russian espionage during the early 20th century.
 * 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 it does not

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?
 * the sources are all mostly published literature related to the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * In relation to the time period in which Ovakimian lived, yes the sources are relatively current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I would not say the authors include historically marginalized individuals but for this article it is not of very much importance, as it refers to the life of a single individual in history.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they all work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is clear and easy to understand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Very few
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, I would say it is well organized.

Images and Media - N/A
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?

For New Articles Only - N/A
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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes the added content has overhauled the quality of the article completely. The original article is completely unorganized with random tidbits from the subjects life. The added content organizes it in a very clear manner.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Organization of the article was highly improved.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More detail on the Germany section and the Return to Soviet Union section, as well as an addition of a section on his early life. Also, sources are in the bibliography but there are no footnotes in the text to reference which ideas came from which sources.

Overall evaluation
7/10