User:Bes8/Coca-Cola (3)/EliseSembach 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? (provide username)
 * Bes8
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Bes8/Coca-Cola (3)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yeah, the Lead does seem to reflect the new content added
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes the summary of the Lead, seems to be concise and descriptive
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the Lead could reflect the vision of the article a little better by listing what the article will go over
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the Lead includes information that is backed up by the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, content appears to be relevant to the topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Appears to be up to date, although current ownership is missing (citation needed?)
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, all content appears to be relevant and nothing seems to be missing

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, all content appears to be neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No from my understanding, no claims seem to be heavily biased
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No equal form of viewpoints
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content seems to be good and does not appear to be persuasive or opinionated

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes, it appears the content is backed up by a source (except one small section that still says citation needed)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes the sources appear to be thorough and reflective of purpose
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources look current
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the ones that I checked work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, very easy to read and follow
 * 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, appears well organized and broken down well

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes article contains one image of Andy Warhol
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes I think so
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, an image of the painting could be a nice addition but from my understanding that was not able to be added

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?
 * Yes, the article seems more improved and complete from the original piece
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Good information and history telling, seems to be strong reliable information
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think overall content is good!