User:Arba02/User:SocksTheKitty/Carroll Chatham/IcecreamPenguin Peer Review

General info
SocksTheKitty
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:SocksTheKitty/Carroll Chatham
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Does Not Exist.
 * Does Not Exist.

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead: (I am saying that the lead is the first paragraph of the article) A very strong lead with a short, But detailed description about Carroll Chatham and who he is. The lead paragraph doesn't mislead the reader on what it will be about. I would consider adding a sentence that builds on "He founded Chatham" because from reading this I don't know what Chatham is. (Maybe say he founded Chatham Jewelry Company like mentioned later in the article).

Content: I like the sections added in the article (Early Life, Career, and Legacy). They give a broad insight on his life and what he created. The content within the article seems relevant to the main topic, But I would like to have more history on his upbringing, I think this article definitely caters to wikipedia's content equity gap because when looking up Carroll Chatham I don't see a lot of content about him and his work. A lot of the article about him are from websites directly about him.

Tone and Balance: The author doesn't try to persuade the readers anytime during the article. It is written in a very neutral tone and does a good job of giving important information and not branching off into irrelevant topics. I think that the legacy section is under represented in this article. You could potentially add a part that adds about what they are doing today. It seems to end very abruptly in this section and this could help close out the article.

Sources and References: There aren't a lot of sources to go off of and they aren't in the article (Already stated by author). with that being said I think that the sources in the reference list are ok. There are a few that are extremely outdated with one from 1949 and another one from 1989. I would recommend finding resources that are more up to date. The links to the sources do work which is a good thing!

Organization: I like the organization of the topics I would agree they should go in that order. I also think that The content is correctly broken down into appropriate topics that provide a good insight on Carroll Chatham. There are a few sentences that could be shortened and still tell the same message, Otherwise I think that the grammar is very good. I also don't see any spelling errors.

Images and Media: No Pictures or media.

New Article Review: I am confident that the article meets the notability requirement, However I would definitely recommend finding a few newer sources to help back up your articles notability. I think there is enough information on this topic that there should be a wikipedia article pertaining to this. Article is also created neatly with headings and sections. Good intro paragraph that gives insight on what the article will be on. The article does not link to other articles yet, I would consider looking into linking articles like Flux, Verneuil method, Diamond, Sapphires, etc. to help the article become more discoverable.

Overall Impressions: Overall this article is very impressive for a first draft, I think that if you expand on the middle sections a bit more it would be a full fledged article. I think that this content is all relevant to the article. One improvement I would recommend is to find newer articles, add hyperlinks to other wikipedia articles, and expand on the underrepresented topics in your article.