User:DylanElder/Henry Ruggs/Jazharmon 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)
 * DylanElder
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the Lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead includes 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?
 * Yes, the Lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
The lead is clear and is definitely easier to read relates to more of the article than before he made the edits.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content added is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, there is no content that is missing or does not belong.

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant to the topics of each heading and is credible.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, there are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Tone and balance evaluation
There is clearly no bias in any of the information added and it is evident that Dylan tried to stay away from swaying anybody's opinion on Henry Ruggs. It is very factual and provides information that people may genuinely want to know rather than information that is not necessarily so relevant.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all the new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work.

Sources and references evaluation
All of the sources added are recent, relevant, and credible.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content added is well-written, clear, concise, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, the content added does not 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?
 * Yes, the content added is well-organized and broken down into section that reflect the major points of the topic.

Organization evaluation
The organization is very clear and makes the article very easy to read. Some of the small details such as the reason why he holds up a 3 after he scores a touch down fits in very perfectly to the places it was added and where it would not have fit before.

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

My peer did not add any new 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?
 * 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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the content added has improved the overall quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I think the information added makes the article much easier to read and follow. It gives a much clearer picture on Henry Ruggs as an athlete and I any person who is looking him up will now get credible, in depth information which they would not have gotten before Dylan re-wrote it.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think it is just a formatting thing that will change once he publishes it in wikipedia, but the reference links are in odd places in the article.