User:Bellsam4/User:Bellsam4/Bear claw (pastry)/Kathylamb7 Peer Review

General info

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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, added some details to the info chart on the right
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, clear and concise and also refers to the origin/slight history of it
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, briefly talks about process of making a bear claw which leads into the production section
 * Maybe linke "Dieter Schorner" to a wikipage (if it exists)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Decently concise, could split up the section to intro and lead

Lead evaluation
Overall really concise and clear, I thought that the addition of the ingredients was useful!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, added more global references/information
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Consider the last section (Svenhard) as it might come off as biased toward one company? Not too sure about it though
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * N/A

Content evaluation
Overall good, the content is relevant and supports existing information

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Maybe the Svenhard company point
 * Not sure how the reference for almond paste (citation 4) might be seen as All Recipes (to my understanding) allows many different people to share their recipes?
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
Solid

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
All good

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?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
Overall good! Maybe consider splitting up the first section into 2

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Gave more context and information on the physical build of a bear claw
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall, solid article! I really liked the information that you added in a "Wiki" tone and some more historical background. If you were looking of areas to add/improve on, maybe look into any contests/fairs/conferences that might have Bear Claws as it's main focus to add a "social" aspect of it.


 * Sentence in intro (One of the differences...), consider changing "besides taste" to "aside from taste"

Good luck!