User:Bellsam4/Bear claw (pastry)/Vpritchard 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? Bellsam4
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Bear claw (pastry)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I appreciate how you discussed the differences and compared between the Danish and Bear Claw. Additionally it is great that you added explanation of ingredients and what the Bear Claw is made of.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, maybe work on added more sections in the page to then cover in the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The Lead is thorough on information about the Bear Claw that is not necessarily mentioned in sections in the page. You could create sections and put the information within those, and then mention them in the Lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead has more details than the contents of the page, so creating content sections can help.

Lead evaluation
The Lead provides great additional details about the Bear Claw such as ingredients, some additional context and comparisons. However, the contents of the rest of the page are still lacking so you could create sections of history, ingredients, etc. and then move that information from the Lead into the sections. Great information added to the page!

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?

Content evaluation
The content added to the page is necessary and relevant. I like how you added history and context behind the production such as information about the cutter used to make Bear Claws and who invented it. More content you can consider adding includes notable brands that make Bear Claws or more on ingredients/recipes/nutritional information.

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 content added is neutral and informational.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources appear thorough, reliable, and informative.

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 added is well written and clear. It clearly shares information regarding Bear Claws and flows nicely. Creating sections for topics in the page will help organize the information better so that the Lead can be even more concise, perhaps.

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
The article contains an image that captures the idea of the topic well and is labeled well. I find the edits that you made in the label helpful.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The content added has improved the overall quality of the article and the article is more complete. I think this is a great article to be able to edit and improve as there is lots of room for added content and information. The strengths of the content added are that they are informative and provide further information that is relevant and important. The content added can be improved by putting it into structured sections on the page.