User:Buzzybuzz12/User:TRCloyd/sandbox/Buzzybuzz12 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) TRCloyd
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:TRCloyd/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes because it talks about the religion.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Sort of
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not really sure because there is not enough information yet.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the article does not really talk about the religion. It does some but I feel it could have more information.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. The article talks a little bit about the religion but I feel like more information would be necessary for a better understanding.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? One of the sources that provided is up to date (2018).
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There just needs to be more information.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? Hard to tell until more information is added.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it is factual.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes the sources are linked.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. They are reliable sources.
 * Are the sources current? One of the sources is current (2018). The other one is not but does have good information.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? They both work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is east to read and understand. It may need a couple more commas or periods to prevent a run on, depending if it is a direct quote.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Maybe a run on or two.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There is not any sections yet. Once he adds more information then you would be able to tell.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No it does not have any images.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? It is supported by two reliable sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? May need another source but depends on the rest of the information that is intended to be added.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary info boxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? It has a header to show what information is about to be read in that paragraph or so.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Not sure

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I feel like once more information is added then it will be a great addition to the article. It will give more understanding to the readers.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths are that the information provided is from a reliable source (2) and is accessible through links.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content can be improved by adding more information and maybe an image that is relevant to the topic/ article. Another source that is up to date would also be a nice addition to add some new information.