User:Debat012/Chella Man/Sinno024 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

 * Debate012
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Debat012/sandbox

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 remains the same in the draft as in the original article, but I think those two sentences give a clear and concise intro to the topic. You could add a couple sentences describing the article's sections. The lead does not include any information that isn't in the rest of the article, nor is it overly detailed.

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 added content is relevant to the topic of the article and as far I can tell it is all up to date. I'm not sure if there is content missing, but everything that was added does belong.

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
All of the added content is very neutral and not at all biased. There are not over or underrepresented viewpoints, as far as I can tell. I did not feel as though the content of the article is persuasive at all.

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
All of the added content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information and are cited correctly. The sources used all seem to be thorough and current. 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
The added content is all clear, concise and easy to read and understand. I didn't notice any spelling or grammatical errors. The information is all well organized.

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
There is only one photo on the page. The photo that is used is well captioned and adheres to the Wiki copyright regulations. You might consider adding one or two more 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?
 * 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
The article is supported by more than 3 reliable secondary sources. As far as I can tell, the list of sources accurately represents all available literature on the subject. The article follows the pattern of other similar articles, it does, however, only have a couple sections with a small amount of information. This being said, I'm not sure what more could be said on the subject.The article does 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?

Overall evaluation
I think the article feels more complete than before. You did a good job of making the article more up to date. You could add a few sentences to the lead to sort of preview the structure of the rest of the article, but other than that good job!