User:Cessrrrr/Patrick William Kruse/Jau006 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

 * I am reviewing user Cessrrrr's article on Patrick William Kruse.
 * link: User:Cessrrrr/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead includes an introductory, as well as descriptions of the article's major sections. It does not include information not present in the article, and is concise. There are some errors on grammar and formatting, and I think some sentences near the end where it describes Kruse's art style should be in a separate section. Other than that, it is fine.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
Content is relevant to the topic and up to date. However, I think there should be some pictures of the artworks described.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is neutral, and there appear to be no biases towards anything. Nothing mentioned attempts to persuade the reader in any way, and there are no over/underrepresented viewpoints.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All the sources are cited in the paper, and are up to date. The links work, and are current.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content is well organized, and the only errors would be spacing of words, and some of the formatting compared to other Wikipedia articles on artists.

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


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There were no images, but there should be some, especially considering it is an artist article.

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
It meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, and has a sufficient list of sources, which are all cited in the article. It follows the pattern of similar articles, but the font for the section headers is wrong, and the lists for exhibitions and collections looks off compared to others.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I think it was a good start, and everything needed to develop into a full article is there. I like that everything was cited, and overall it can be improved by adding some pictures, and fixing the formatting and grammatical errors.