User:Alysse98/Cheela Smith/Indica1234 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? Alysse98
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Alysse98/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes: summarizes themes of article and acts as a short biography of the artist.
 * 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? Too early in drafting process to tell
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Too early in drafting process to tell
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Could potentially be more concise, but still is a decent Lead

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? From what I can tell, yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Content hasn't been added to most major sections

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? Can't tell yet--early in draft stage
 * 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? No sources are currently cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? N/A
 * Are the sources current? N/A
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes--more links should be added to the list of publications (do they have pages on Wikipedia?)

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Some grammatical and spelling errors in lead that should be fixed (artist's last name misspelled)
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes--very promising beginning sections

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, but more images could be added, if possible
 * Are images well-captioned? A caption should be added to the image to explain its context
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes; book cover
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The image chosen is visually stimulating--the book cover could be moved to another part of the article, and a picture of Cheela Smith could take its place

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? No sources added yet
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? Follows patterns of other articles, section headings make sense
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Not yet (to my knowledge)

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Considering that this is a new article, undoubtedly
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Informative list of publications and dense Lead
 * How can the content added be improved? More content could be added, the publications section might benefit from more content