User:Grantsuth/Necrosis/Jluquir Peer Review

General info
Grantsuth
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Necrosis
 * Necrosis

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * An original lead was already present, however the author did make updates to reflect changes made
 * 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?
 * Not necessarily concise, however is not overly wordy and does a good job of mentioning all relevant information and topics

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, all additions made were strictly factual and unbiased
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, all viewpoints are well balanced in description
 * 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, each addition has a documented source
 * 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?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. Author added contact within the framework of current article structure to retain proper flow.

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


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

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?
 * The content added filled some gaps in the flow and grammar of the article, as well as adding relevant information that helps tie together ideas previously unexplained before the content was added
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * NA

Overall evaluation
The author provided substantial amounts of editing and information. Edits made helped refine the flow of the existing article, making it easier to move from point to point and understand the context of the article in totality.