User:GiannaParisi/Andrew Foster (educator)/Tessdekker 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) GiannaParisi
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Andrew Foster (educator)

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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? 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? No

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? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

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
 * 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? Yes
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Mostly - I might change the organization slightly

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Neutral tone, concise information, addition of the awards/recognitions was very nice
 * How can the content added be improved? I think I might change the organization of the piece slightly

Overall evaluation
I thought this article was off to an amazing start! I did not know much about Andrew Foster, and I thought this taught me a lot. The few comments I have are as follows: first, I wonder if titling it 'Andrew Foster (educator)' should also include 'missionary' in it somewhere, as much of this article focused on the faith-based aspect of his educational career. Second, I think when you say the title of his master's degree (in this case, Education), the title should be capitalized -- i.e. '...earned his master's degree, also in Education.' Finally, I wonder if it might be more logical to put his early background information earlier on in the article. I think the opening line of this is perfect, but it makes sense to me to follow this up with his early childhood information, and then move on into his career later. Right now, these are flipped, but I wonder if a chronological order might make better sense, considering this is a biographical account of his life. Just my thoughts! I really enjoyed reading this piece.