User:Chaquille/Jean-Baptiste Noulet/Sdel002 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): Chaquille
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Chaquille/Jean-Baptiste Noulet

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
I believe that the lead information is very well supported. There is a lot of good information that is being added, which in turn provides valuable information to the reader.

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 in this submission is related to the topic and is up to date. Like I mentioned before, there are a lot of good stuff being added to the article. Especially because they are already categorized.

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
I believe that it is pretty neutral. They add factual information that gives information about the topic and subject. I dont think anything is overrepresented, however I just feel there needs to be more information and details regarding the subject. There is not persuasion over one side or the other.

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
Yes, they have added all reliable resources at the bottom of the page. All of the information back up the topic and make sense when correlated to the sources. All of the links 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
All of the content that is added is clear and easy to read. It is done very well so far, all I say is to add more information.

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
They added one picture of the topic and it fits the topic well. It is well captioned and makes sure that it is correctly placed. It helps with the visualization to the whole page.

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
Yes it supported by 2-3 reliable sources. Yes it acurately represents all available literature. It is done very well so far.

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 that is added has helped the article. It is laid out very well and concise. The detailed information is easy to read and provides the correct information to the readers. All I would say is to add more information and details.