User:Cgooby/Chocolate bunny/Jfinlay8 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? Cgooby
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cgooby/Chocolate bunny

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * 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? Mostly. Doesn't seem to have an introduction to sales and controversy.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, I don't see anything about the bible in the main sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

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'm sure there's some content that could be added but it is a great article so far and includes a good amount of content.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, I don't think so.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The "is loved by many adults and children worldwide" part didn't seem fully neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The controversy section seemed a bit biased but it was backed with sources so It seems okay.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? All seem equally represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Mostly no, except for maybe the controversy portion.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? They aren't great, the youtube source is probably not the best as with ABC News and history. I would try to find more from books and academic journals, etc.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * 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? Not that I saw.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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


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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It adds more dimension to the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? Could add another section to add even more. Sources could be stronger.