User:Btymoniewicz/William Pickens/Zachcorliss 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? Btymoniewicz
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: William Pickens

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes the Lead is sets up the content in the paper very nicely.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The intro sentence is both concise and to the point.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Though it is concise, i wish the books were more talked about in depth later on.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation
The lead is strong and to the point. If anything maybe add some sentences about the other things talking about (early life, adulthood etc)

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes the content adds to the strength of the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes it seems up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes William teaches about the underrepresented populations and it is highlighted in the article.

Content evaluation
The content is strong and describes Williams story well. An addition of some ties into it will make the article extremely strong.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no all are unbaised and factual.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think the wording now keeps it straight and to the point.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No the statements are true and to the point, not working towards persuading one towards an opinion.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance are strong and follow the story of his life well.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes the new sources seem to be strong
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? they are through for each individual purpose
 * Are the sources current? There are some older but also some very current sources giving hte article strength.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * 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? The content seems to be coming together but all great points.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I couldnt find any grammar or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It definitely can be separated into more subsections but all the main ideas are there and well executed.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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? yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? there is a wide list of both old and new sources tying it together.
 * 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? yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I think the content for sure has helped alot.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The wide amount of information and topics to talk about give a strong foundation for the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think by working on the set up and breaking it up you will be able to hone in on individual facts that will add to the strength of the article as well as the readers experience.