User:Cyril Salame/Amin Rachid Nakhle/Fsk09 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

 * Rhea Labaki
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cyril Salame/Amin Rachid Nakhle

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Lead can be more detailed to include the topics of the article.
 * 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? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * 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? No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Not completely
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes. example: "one of the brilliant"
 * 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 but not properly cited (APA)
 * 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? The links work by copying and pasting they are not properly "linked".

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Information is easy to understand; however, the article can be more organized and structured (writing headlines, titles) to improve the flow of ideas.

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


 * No images.

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? Yes but they are not properly cited.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? They used books and websites; however, the sources are not clear and specific.
 * 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? Yes, but they did not make use of wikipedia's formatting tools (headings, bold, italics...)
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Does not link to other articles.

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?