User:Ajtantico/Friends (Omar Apollo EP)/Eddie943586 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) Ajtantico/Friends
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Ajtantico/Friends (Omar Apollo EP)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has been updated and reflected the content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes ,the intro sentence gives me a clear notes for the topic
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The major sections included based on the lead
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead gives me a clear sense for the topic

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added related to the topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date? No, he needs to change that
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content is missing some parts and give me not clear of that.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The particular position gives the content more clear sense of what is talking about
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? I think it's underrepresented, because it's seems like the viewpoint are not clear
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?Yes

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 through the topic and reflect the literature
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links are working

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content gives a stance that easy to read and know each part talking about
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Little bit grammatical issue
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Needs more organized

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the image let me know the topic deeply
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?YES, IT included the new sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The literature enhanced the new message.
 * 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?Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? The link gives us a content that easy to read the article

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, let me have a content that improve the article
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strength article added the content that gives me a new look of the sandbox.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think needs more title and specific comments