User:AshliC/Don Juan (poem)/Cscherer1 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? AshliC
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Don Juan (poem)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Doesn't seem like the lead was edited.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Certainly, it's an effective lead.
 * 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
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It has some detail but I wouldn't consider it ineffective.

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 to my knowledge

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Seems so
 * 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? Doesn't seem like it

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are several direct sources to the book.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are from the book
 * Are the sources current? The sources are from the book.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Haven't found one that doesn't

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? Nothing outstanding
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it's organized by each Canto

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? Not entirely certain how to check this.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? I believe so

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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The sources primarily only concern the actual text.
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Doesn't seem like it

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content added seems sparce, from what I can see
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Adding sources and citations are always welcome.
 * How can the content added be improved? The article is already strong.

Overall evaluation
While minuscule, adding citations and sources is nothing to be overlooked as many articles suffer from credibility in this regard. It's always helpful to shore up an article's references.