User:Alexfaith/African American hair/Noah.H97 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? Alexfaith
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: African-American hair

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead introduces the topic in a professional way.
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No it does not
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and gets straight to the point of the article

Lead evaluation
Even though the lead seems somewhat short it opens up the article in a good and positive way for the reader to engage.

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? Not that i can look up with my current skills

Content evaluation
The content in the article is very informational and is well ordered.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes the content remains neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No claims are heavily biased
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoints are spread evenly throughout the article
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content added remains neutral in the article.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is well equipped with tone and balance in the fact that the information is provided neutrally and with good intention

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 author has many sources.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they work

Sources and references evaluation
I am very impressed with the volume of sources that the author has used and the information that he was able to acquire from them.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is very well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that i can read.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is very well-organized and easy to understand.

Organization evaluation
I am very impressed with how organized this article is and have no complaints.

Images and Media
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, that i know of
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
The pictures are well organized and in a coherent way as to better understand the topic.

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? The article's length is done very well as to not be to long and not be to short at the same time.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of this article are that it is very well organized and it is very well written and easy to understand.
 * How can the content added be improved? Maybe add more to the facial and military ban sections. Or add them in to another section and have it all together as one section.

Overall evaluation
My overall evaluation of this article is that it is very well written and I'm very impressed with how it looks even though the topic might not seem like the most important subject.