User:Haley Lamborn/Andy Goldsworthy/HeyImAl Peer Review

Peer Review: Alicia Hoerman
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

Evaluation Scale: 1 - 10

1 = bad, 10 = great

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Haley Lamborn
 * Link to draft you're reviewing : Andy Goldsworthy, Special:Contributions/Haley Lamborn

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not enough edits have been made to really affect the lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, but I feel like the sentence "He lives and works in Scotland." is a bit out of place. Maybe integrate it into the Lead sentence or expand on it a bit?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead has a contents box that includes all the sections of the article, but the lead itself doesn't have a description.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's extremely 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? The Personal Life section of the Andy Goldsworthy page is very short, maybe dig into some sources to help expand on it it?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I did not see any, 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, it is all neutral.

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? The links I checked 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? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? For the most part yes, but for the sub-headers the information was broken into under "Career", it may look nicer to capitalize the first letter of each word, for example "Art process" would change to "Art Process". Also, the title "An Example of art work" feels a bit wordy for a header. Maybe shorten it to "Example of Work" or just "Artwork"?

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (No new images added, I just reviewed what is already present)


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, except for the one under the "Career" section. It would be nice to put the title of the piece instead of just saying it's a sculpture.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, although it would be nice to find images for the pieces under "Exhibitions and Installations" that don't have a picture.

For New Articles Only (N/A)
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? It's great you were able to add citations, it's always good to have plenty of them to support the information presented. Also, it's great that you added a references section!
 * How can the content added be improved? The article itself is still a bit sparse, so consider drafting some new additions from your collected sources. I'd also double check all the formatting to just make sure it's nice and clean.