User:DylanElder/Henry Ruggs/Kransom34 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)
 * Dylan Elder
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Msfsckx3shCSIZjJUuJazJ-Jx1A1N772kqbUlMbguec/edit?ts=5f282b0f#heading=h.b3fjg6464kou

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes it is descriptive and concise. It gives good insight to what the article is going to be about without including excess or unnecessary information.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes it briefly describes his early years, college years, and professional years, which are the subsections of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Very concise, long enough. There aren't any details that shouldn't be there.

Lead evaluation
The lead is a good length and it's informative enough that if that's the only section I read, I would know exactly who I'm reading about and a general idea of what the person does in his life.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content added is very useful and relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content is up to date and current. A lot of the information in there is from 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There isn't any content that does not belong. All the information in the draft has to do with the lead and what is being discussed. I think there's always room for more information to be added, but after reading the draft I'm not left with any questions, so the draft did a good job of informing me about Henry Ruggs. If I wanted more information, I would probably just go to another Wikipedia website.

Content evaluation
The content is useful and applicable to the topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, everything in the article/draft is factual, and if there is an opinionated sentence it is cited, so it doesn't appear that the writer is attempting to be persuasive.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, since the article is about one man's athletic career, there isn't much room for multiple viewpoints.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, just informative

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone and balance are both good, I feel as though I'm reading straight facts, nothing opinionated.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, all the information is close to or during 2020
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Sources are current and up to date, used in a good way throughout the draft. Making for a more organized and easy to read article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
Easy to follow. The added information flows nicely, and everything makes sense chronologically.

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?
 * 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The content added improves the article tremendously. I feel the article is much more complete and I feel well informed. I believe it is reliable and useful. It can be improved by maybe adding more about his personal life, or more information about an aspect of his life that isn't football. Just a thought, not necessary though.