User:HunterWWW/10 Day/Btaylor 16 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)
 * HunterWWW
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * 10 Day

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead does not specifically mention any of the new information from my peer but is rather just an outline and general information about the album.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead prefaces the article nicely and allows the reader background of the album.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the contents of the article are listed
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The information in the lead is information about the album rather than an introduction of what the article is about.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is brief yet contains good information about the album.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the added content gives more valuable information about the album and its success.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yea, the content added is up-to-date and relevant.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All the content present in the article flows nicely and nothing seems out of place or that it does not belong. I can also not see anywhere where content would be missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I would say that specific albums do not appear to be an underrepresented topic on Wikipedia.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the added content has a neutral and un-biased tone
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, all the information added is strictly factual and not biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, I do not believe there are any viewpoints included in the article added by my peer- it remains neutral and factual.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the information added by my peer is not persuasive in any way and only factual.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all of the information was cited accurately and included in-text citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources listed are thorough and represent accurate information about the album
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources cited all appear to be updated regularly and are recently.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the sources represent different authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work properly and take me to the websites cited.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content added by my peer is clear, and easy to read and is sounds formal and well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Under the Cover Art heading it is typed "10 DAY"- do you mean "10 Day"?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is well organized and separated under headings accurately and divided well

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the article includes one image of the album cover but it was not placed there by my peer.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
Maybe add one more picture. It would makes sense to add a picture while talking about the cover art to show what you are describing.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

* This article is not new*


 * 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, now the article contains much more valuable information about the album and covers more topics relating to Chance's album.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The information added is very well written and a strong addition to the article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The one thing I noticed is add in-text links to other wikipedia articles in a word.

Overall evaluation
Very good job!