User:Bew0812g/Brian Lewis/Lolitascc Peer Review

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Bew0812g


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bew0812g/Brian_Lewis?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
The lead's introductory sentence is concise and clear, it outlines the subject's main occupation and reason for notability.

It includes a brief description of the article's main points, pointing to his early life, education and summarizes his work which is detailed later in the article. It does not include anything that isn't later included in the article and doesn't miss any points later elaborated on.

The lead overall is concise and clear and gives a good overview of the subject.

Content
The content is relevant and up to date. All the content is representative of the subject and pertinent to the article.

Tone and Balance
The article is written in a very neutral tone. It gives information about the subject and recognizes their work as notable without showing any bias. It details why the subject is highly recognized and praised from an objective standpoint. All the information is factual information based on the subject's life, career and work, concerning facts solely about them without any bias. It doesn't seem as the author is attempting to persuade the readers of any viewpoint, the information is delivered without leaning in a particular direction.

Sources and References
Almost all the content is supported by a source. The "personal engagement and advocacy" section includes information that needs a source to confirm it.

The sources are all thorough and reflect what the article states. The sources provided are reliable and include work from an array of different authors. The sources aren't random and come from reliable pages such as the Manchester University Press and The National Archives. All of the links work.

Organization
The content is very easy to read and the headers provided clearly outline the information in an easy to read way. It is separated into clear sections which allows an easy read.

It flows well and is very concise and not too wordy. No grammatical errors appear to me.

Images and Media
There are no images or media included in the article. I would recommend putting a picture of Brian Lewis if one is available!

For New Articles
The subject does meet notability standards. There are numerous credible sources which support this claim and recognize the subject's notability. The organization of the article and the headers are all standard for similar articles. Adding a photo if possible would add to the article as well.

The article does not link to other articles to make it more discoverable. This could be done by linking institutions the subject has been at, linking British historians, and linking prominent work if they have a wikipedia page.

Overall Impressions
The article is a great addition to Wikipedia. It contains notable information on a pertinent subject and their work which is great to have an article about. Besides adding an image, sourcing the final section and linking other wikipedia pages I think the article is perfect to be published!

Overall it is an easy, concise read which provides pertinent information with reliable sources to back it up.