User:Bdonoley/Edward Rose (Fur Trapper)/Ericksondembowski 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? Bdonoley
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Bdonoley/Edward Rose (Fur Trapper)/Bibliography

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
'''The lead serves as a brief stub for who the man was, but it does not outline his life. If more sections were added and the information split up by section, thereby automatically generating a table of contents, the intro would be much cleaner. The intro paragraph could be condensed and reformatted to better fit Wikipedia style. Although it does give a brief overview of Edward Rose, as of right now the article is not formatted correctly. The lead appears to be just a jumping off point for a timeline of the man's life. It does not provide a summary. While the lead format provides a decent amount of detail, it's not the right details that belong in a comprehensive, concise article lead.'''

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?

Content evaluation
'''The present content gives a lot of flavor and substance to Rose's life, but it seems to provide mere snapshots of Rose's life. I would wager there's a good deal of missing content and missing context. Were the article more narratively/chronologically structured, I think it would yield clarity as to what events in Rose's life are particularly notable. As it stands, a lot of the necessary structure for the article is missing, making the notable content difficult to discern.'''

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
'''The tone is neutral enough, but there are several instances where I can tell the author was shooting for words/phrases to add zest, but some of these ended up sounding non-impartial or unfounded in regards to referenced material (given the lack of citations). Right now it reads like a story, which would be fine in real life, but for Wikipedia it doesn't seem clean enough yet.'''

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
'''With the exception of the Grinde source, the references do not seem reputable or reliable. Source No. 3 links to a blog post, which itself cites source No. 4, which is a webpage purporting "Mountain Man Lore" and is entirely in Comic Sans. While that page does cite the reputable source "The Mountain Men and the Fur Trade of the Far West" by LeRoy Hafen, this page is a secondhand source at best, and at worst it's just some guy with a URL. More sources are absolutely needed.'''

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
'''The content is not easy to read and is peppered throughout with grammatical errors, word omissions, spelling mistakes and punctuation errors. It does not have any structure and is mostly unclear. It's not really an article right now.'''

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?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images or media on this page.

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?

New Article Evaluation
'''This article is supported by a single reliable source. It does contain any of the important aspects of a Wikipedia article in either notability, structure or purpose.'''

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
'''While this is a decent start and definitely is not a finished product, it reads more like an article proposal than even a stub Wikipedia article. The thing is, the content that is there looks promising and incredibly interesting, and I really would like to know more about this guy. Given the details, he certainly seems notable. However, this HAS to be backed up with multiple reliable sources. My three main suggestions for this article are: 1) better/more reliable sourcing, even though it is difficult right now given the pandemic; 2) overhauled structure, so the article looks, feels and functions like a true Wikipedia article; 3) serious proofreading for grammar errors and spelling mistakes. I really do think this could make an interesting topic and if the claims within can be verified by more legitimate sources, then this has a chance to be a really cool and informative article.'''