User:Annecsw/Sebastian Stan/Rodgod08 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)
 * Annecsw
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Sebastian Stan

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - no
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - np
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - no
 * There was no Lead for me to review yet unfortunately. Therefore all of these answers are No.
 * There was no Lead for me to review yet unfortunately. Therefore all of these answers are No.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * There was no content added besides a couple sources. The sources seemed to have decent content that would be up to date. Just depends on how it will be used. No other content was added yet unfortunately.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? - not yet
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - viewpoints are not represented yet,
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - Not yet
 * There was no content for me to review its tone or balance yet, most of these answers are no.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? -- No. Sources seem more like blogs or gossip talk. Could find more sources to help with the conent.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? --The sources are decently updated but since its an actor it doesn't reflect the available literature
 * Are the sources current?-- Sources from 2018 and 2019 so its within the last couple years. Seem to be decently current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? -- Both sources come from 2 different women. One from indiewire and the other from Bustle. The Bustle one seems to have more credibility but it mostly talks about his love life.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? -- Both links work well, easy to open.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?-- not yet
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? -- none
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? -- Not yet
 * There is no content yet so there is no organization to review. At the same time since there was no content there were no errors.

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?
 * My peer did not add any images or media, at least not yet.

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? -- There was no new content added besides a couple sources, therefore the article is not more complete yet.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? -- There are no strengths since there is no new content added. Sources were only thing added.
 * How can the content added be improved? -- It can be improved by adding more content and possibly more/better sources

Overall evaluation
There just wasn't any new content to evaluate yet besides some sources. I believe more content and organization would make this better, unfortunately didn't get that opportunity yet.