User:Braveyy/Javier Ambrossi/OsoBean Peer Review

Lead


 * The lead looks pretty solid and details a lot of the basics about the main topic
 * The lead does not have a brief description of the article's main sections
 * The lead's information can be found throughout the article in some more detail, but some of the mentions could be further elaborated
 * The lead is currently concise

Content


 * The content is relevant and up to date, even mentioning a future event in 2024 (if this is allowed?)
 * The content could be elaborated on but has a good structure so far, elaboration on career events and projects could be useful
 * The article does address an equity gap

Tone and balance


 * The tone is neutral and does not persuade the reader in any direction

Sources


 * The sources look good, all magazine/newspaper articles
 * At least one link goes to the wayback machine/internet archive but is still accessible
 * The sources are current and up to date
 * It might be useful to look into different types of sources although the ones provided are most relevant to the topic and likely to report on it

Organization


 * The organization is good
 * The personal life section is very short and might make sense to rearrange based on other actor's wiki pages
 * The phrase "On 10 february 2024," should be edited but I don't see any other typos and minor edits otherwise

Images and media


 * The one image provided is appropriate and well captioned

Overall impressions


 * The article is off to a strong start with a good basic outline
 * There is a lot to expand upon and further research
 * The Spanish version of the article goes into much more depth on the actor's career but has worse organization, so you might look to the content but not organization there
 * In general it could be improved by reporting more on the significance of certain events and expanding on their different roles/achievements. Looks good so far!

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


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * 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.)