User:Fusionhonestduplex/Rjukan–Notodden Industrial Heritage Site/Picoides 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): Fusionhonestduplex
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Fusionhonestduplex/Rjukan–Notodden Industrial Heritage Site

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Lead looks good. Concise but descriptive in an effective way
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes; again, very effective in briefly describing the topic. Nice job
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, but I'm not totally sure if it's necessary or effective in this case. Might be good to check with profs on this.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, but I think it's fine
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Nope, perfect length for the subject.

Lead evaluation
Overall, I think your lead is incredibly effective. Not too long, but not too short with good amounts of detail.

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?
 * Not that I can tell

Content evaluation
Don't really feel there is need to comment any more on this. Content is fine. If you want additional thoughts, let me know.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not a controversial topic so it's hard to have bias. Looks good to me.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
Again, looks fine. Because I did not do the research it's hard for me to tell if there is bias, but it doesn't seem like it.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Seems like the History section needs some sources cited. You did the research and that is obvious, but might be good to cite in there. Over-citing is not a bad thing, at least I don't think it is.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Good, just fill in some citations if you have them.

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?
 * Not that I noticed
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
Very well written. Good job!

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Definitely!
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Appears so
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I think so

Images and media evaluation
Very effective use of 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?
 * Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Sources may need a bit of expanding, but it's hard for me to know how much information is out there on this topic.
 * 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?
 * Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes

New Article Evaluation
Because this is a translated article, it looks fine and very well done.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Definitely
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Great writing, good organization and structure
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Expand on the citation and sources if possible

Overall evaluation
I've said again and again, I think this is well done. It's hard for me to pick at it except for expanding on the sources.