User:Gryffindor0303/Victoria Lomasko/Tubbsofsteel 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) Gryffindor0303
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Draft:Victoria Lomasko

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, no complaints on the leads.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Most of the leads have a brief description of the articles major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I believe the leads are quite concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes all content is relative to the topic at hand.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes most of the content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No most content is relevant to the article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, there is an overall neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there is nothing of the sort.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think all the viewpoints were well represented but there could be a mention of the public reactions to the authors works.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, I did not see any form of that.

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, most of the sources do.
 * Are the sources current? Yes they are.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links work perfectly.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, no complaints it is very easy to read.
 * 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, the content is very well organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A (no images)
 * 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? Yes, it fulfills all the requirements.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes, all the sources accurately reflect the topics.
 * 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, it does.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, it does. The large amount of sources generally increases the quality of the article and it adds relevant context towards the author.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Most are important sources that reflect the life of the author, her works and her projects. All the sources provide good context for the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? Perhaps more analysis on the authors works (i.e. explain the general themes of her works and the prose)