User:ChristianSmay/Agnes Pockels/Siewint 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? ChristianSmay
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Agnes Pockels

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I don't believe the lead was updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it is short and sweet.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does not.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes it does.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise and to the point.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? I would agree the content is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? I believe so.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There are two links regarding fellow individuals that do not exist.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Neutral as well as mainly factual based information.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There was not much content regarding her research. I would have liked to read more about her work.
 * 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? Not every piece of content has a secondary source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Not every link works.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The current content is easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I noticed.
 * 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?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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? No.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The article itself is not very long, therefore it does not contain a long list of sources.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary info boxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

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
I don't think this article has been edited by my peer.