User:Chandlerhall2/Winchester Troper/Kej9149 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? Chandlerhall2
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Chandlerhall2/Winchester Troper

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, a lot of new contents have been added.
 * 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? There was no mention or a brief description about the debate on dating and physical description in the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The information about the location where the manuscripts are held.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's fairly 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 don't think so.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Not really.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, in terms of the content he brought the opinions of several scholars, which allowed the content to be objectively neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? All the claims in this article look unbiased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Some of the references are from the 1970s, the most recent sources are from the early 2000s.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources are from two different scholars, Susan Rankins and Alejandro Enriqu Planchart. Although they seem to be quite authoritative on this subject, the sources from those two have huge time gaps.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes, links I clicked work fine.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It's easy to read and understand. However, the word "adiestematic" should be changed or you should add the definition. This is because I cannot find the meaning of the word even when I google it.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think some headings should be renamed. For example you can make the heading "Corpus 473" and put "physical description" and "overview of contents" in the "Corpus 473" heading. Also, the section for the debate of dating should be placed at the end of the article. Since this debate is not critical for understanding the essential meaning of the topic but a supplementary part of the topic.

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? good
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? it should do...
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes!

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? I really like this improved article from Chandlerhall2. The body has been added with a good amount and good quality of content.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The added content is more focused on the corpus 273 which is very important.
 * How can the content added be improved? Contents are really good, but the headings and titles should be reconsidered as I mentioned above.