User:Fallszn/Zackary Drucker/Warriorzee 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) Fallszn
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Zackary Drucker

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, peer added sentence regarding the type of works Drucker explores as an artist which is relevant to the content added.
 * 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? The lead is 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? Rhys Ernst name is not hyperlinked to his wikipage. Causes confusion when reading about relationship between the two.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The majority of the content is neutral some of the content is taken from Druckers perspective allowing for there to be a form of bias in favor of her.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Rather than a neutral reporting of transgender peoples, In the personal life section the writer is evidently supporting transgender relationships by adding the line: "Drucker and Ernst want to show that transgender people can live ordinary lives, filled with love".
 * 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? Yes the content is very much in favor of Drucker.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Many of the sources come from newspaper article not much journal or peer reviewed sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they all revolve around Zachary Drucker lacking sources about transgender film makers as a whole. Mainly news/opinion articles not so much journal articles.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

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? Very minor
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it is broken down to Early life, Personal Life and Career then lists filmography and exhibitions in other sections. Makes very easy to follow as you read.

Images and Media - No Media included
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 - Not new article
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
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Discusses Zacharys influences and personal connection to work.
 * How can the content added be improved? Hyperlink Rhys Ernst to add background contest to who was/is in zacharys life.

Overall evaluation
All in all, I think the article is very well written. There are a lot of very good points with detailed facts and dates to support the statements. I did find that the early life section did include parts that I think would be better fit in the career section.