User:GoforPapaPalpatine/Lone Wolf and Cub/Fordhuntington1 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) GoforPapaPalpatine
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:GoforPapaPalpatine/Lone Wolf and Cub

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not yet, as they are adding a section about library reception, it seems all they will have to add is something to the table of contents.
 * 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, there is a table of contents.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead gives a good summary of everything in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I find the lead to be very concise, so concise that it almost could be added to a little bit.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, I think discussing libraries and reception are important topics.
 * 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, it simply describes how libraries have dealt with the rise in popularity of graphic novels.
 * 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, the sources all seem to be of academic nature.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they seem to be directly linked to the topic itself.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all the links and citations worked.

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've been able to find.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, all of the topics cover all of the different aspects of the subject.

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? Yes, though I think the topic that they are adding to the article could be greatly expanded on.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added brings up an interesting and important topic surrounding the work they are discussing.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think that they just need to expand on the topic they are discussing and continue to discuss the smaller details of libraries and how they have received the work.

Overall evaluation
The content they have added so far seems like a solid start to a great addition. The content is all cited and from academic sources. Additionally, it brings up important topics and issues surrounding the work. I think that they are at the start of a solid contribution.