User:Bdarken/sandbox/Sffleck 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? Bdarken
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Bdarken/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it claims Needham is highly respected in is field.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it focuses on Needham's influential ongoing series of books.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it does mention that Needham is highly respected and his books became bestsellers.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the article does not include how other scholars received Needham's work.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it adds more information about Needham and the reception to his influential work.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, most sources are from the 2000s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Everything seems to be organized and chronological.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Neutral, the information is strictly factual.
 * 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? No, the information is neither positive nor negative in regards to the opinion of the editor, and all claims are backed by credible, identifiable sources.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, such as journal articles and published scholarly books.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they involve the reception of the books that the article focuses on.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, most sources are from the 2000s.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

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? None
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it starts with a general claim then provides the sources to back it up.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? Yes, there are 5 reliable sources used.
 * 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, there are many links and footnotes as well.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, for example, the New York Times and Galaxy Science Fiction.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, there is added information on Needham's Science and Civilisation in China
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Added more information on a very influential work in a well-structured and unbiased manner.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think it is already well written. I don't think an image needs to be added either since it is just focusing on book reviews.