User:BrennonBarney/Giuseppe Bertani/Thomasturner1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? User:BrennonBarney


 * Link to draft you're reviewing User:BrennonBarney/Giuseppe Bertani - Wikipedia:

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The article is lacking sections altogether.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Everything is very to the point, and I thought had the right amount of detail. I think just more about him overall would be nice. in subsections that maybe go into more depth than what they have right now.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think there could be more detail given on a few of the accomplishments he had but I don't believe anything is missing.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No just facts are presented

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes the main ideas from the sources are given and elaborated to give comprehensive detail.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I believe there could be a few more jus from some basic searches myself.
 * Are the sources current? Yes as far as the history goes.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? I would not say better but for sure more sources that say the same kind of things.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

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? "States" needs to be capitalized. "did work" to worked. "," after school.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No sections and I think that would help break each paragraph up as to what it represents.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? only 3 so maybe more sources.
 * 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? No
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * What are the strengths of the content added? Concise