User:Chanandrew6/John Carlson (ice hockey)/Kransom34 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)
 * Chanandrew6
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zE9pC4GYz1XnaqpHNtvX6421dScwqEy__k9rnDbeunY/edit?ts=5f282bcc

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 is a little short. It doesn't give a lot of insight about what the proceeding sections will be. It does answer the question "who".

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Content evaluation
The content added is useful. It adds facts and statistics which from what I can see was lacking in the article at first. This is really good. It adds more description and detail to the article and as I said, a lot that was added are numbers, which specify pieces of the article so it doesn't have such a broad and generalized feel to it.

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
As I said, most of the information Chan added us factual and statistics. He added a lot of information but it is all balanced and has a neutral tone.

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 sources do work and all the content is backed up by reliable sources. After checking a few links, they do work. The sources fill content gaps well. All the information added does reflect literature on topic.

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
There aren't any grammatical or spelling errors in the draft, there are some times where the organization can be improved but nothing major.

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
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?
 * 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?

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 improved the quality of the article. The content Chan added gave more detail and made the article more professional. One of the paragraphs he added expanded on the information already in the article, but it was backed up by more reliable sources and concrete facts.