User:Debat012/Chella Man/Viki.vick 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) Debat012
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Chella Man

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:
Yes the lead has been updated, The lead does have an introductory sentence it has begun the process of describing the articles topics but can use more description on upcoming topics. Yes it does include a description of the articles major sections. No it does not include information that is not present n the article. I think the Lead could use more detail, just basic information before going into more depth on the topics.

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:
Yes the content added about his personal life, his life and career are relevant. Yes, it is added up to date could use more information on personal life. I think the personal life topic, could be added more to it, but if not its fine as it is.

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:
Yes the content added is neutral. No there aren't any claims in particular that biased to a position. I think more viewpoint on his personal life may be needed for his description and overall profile but nothing i over represented. No the content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in any way or form.

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 it is backed by reliable sources. Yes they the available description/definition of the topic. Yeah, the sources are current unless. The links are working.

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:
There aren't any hard too read sentences, paragraphs flow nicely and are easy to read. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors. Topics are well organized and have description on them that contribute to the topic being talked about.

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 one image and that is his profile picture I don't think there is a need for any other picture. Yes image is well captioned. Yes the image adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The image used looks visually good.

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:
Not a new article

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:
It has definitely improved the quality of the article, and its on the way of completion but still needs more overall information. The strengths is the detail added about him and his life. The content can be better if there is more description of him but I believe that its still a working process since its so early in the project.