User:Cfugate1031/Ron Travis/Gesanes 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)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Ron Travis

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 has been updated to reflect new content, but its lead sentence is too panoptic and does not sufficiently describe the subject. It includes a brief overview of the content of the acritcle's major sections; however, it does contain information not contained in the article, such as the counties under the jurisdiction of his district. Overall, the lead is concise.

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
The content is relevant and up-to-date. All of Travis's elections, his community involvement, and committee positions are covered, so there is no inconsistency of coverage.

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 article's tone is neutral and factual, and no inferences about the subject are made. As the content of the article is purely factual, no viewpoints are over- or underrepresented to persuade the reader.

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
The author has used Facebook as a source, the content of which is not checked for accuracy, and the website of Travis's insurance company, which might be too closely associated with the subject to disseminate purely factual information. The page lacks references to newspapers and scorecards, which are published. Nevertheless, the sources are current and work.

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 concise and easy to read; however, there are a few grammatical and spelling errors such as misspelled "incumbent".

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
The article includes a headshot of Ron Travis that is not captioned; nevertheless, it is formatted in a visually appealing manner.

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
The article is supported by two reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, but the article's inclusion of questionable sources such as Facebook diminish the import of the acceptable sources. Additionally, the sources are not exhaustive because it does not include references to scorecards or newspaper articles.

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
The content added can be improved by rectifying any grammatical and spelling errors, captioning the image of Ron Travis, and adding slightly more detail into the article's lead sentence.