User:Alex J Brickley/Henri de Tonti/SCHILLGM9363 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) Alex J Brickley
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Alex J Brickley/sandbox

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
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It discusses his exploration, but does not specifically address the other edited content areas.
 * 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 concise, though it doesn't explore some of the other areas covered within the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

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 overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

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? Yes, the sources seem to be very through.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content written was very clear and easy to read.
 * 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? Yes.

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?

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?

Overall impressions
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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, I think you did really well. The introduction you added made it very clear who the article was about, which the original article seemed to lack. Also, splitting the article up under more defined headings I think will greatly improve the general reading experience of the article. I especially appreciated that you separated the early life from the military service. It was much clearer to have these two separated, instead of being one paragraph, as his military career seems important to who he is as a person. Generally, the setup of the article seems more clearly outlined now. It was also very helpful that you linked the referenced information, such as the battles, etc. to their own wikipedia pages, so that it was clear where one could get more information about them. You also added a strong collection of secondary sources, which will be helpful for others if they want to research the topic further.