User:Indica1234/Jacki Randall/Roygbiv99 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? (Indica1234)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Indica1234/Jacki Randall

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead should be expanded upon if more information is available, otherwise it looks pretty good.
 * 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? Yes, make sure all works in the lead are included in the bibliography.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's pretty good how it is, 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?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The biography is light on the cartooning information, but the language used it neutral and balanced.
 * 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
 * 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

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images
 * Are images well-captioned? n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

* her website seems like it has lots of great images for potential use

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, 3 so far
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? It could be longer depending on what is available
 * 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? Looks good compared to my artists page and other queer cartoonists' pages I have looked at (for example, Alison Bechdel is a great example to follow)
 * 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? It's getting there
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Good
 * How can the content added be improved? Mention where on the website information came from like Indica mentioned herself

Overall evaluation
Your structure and organization are great, your information looks accurate, concise and unbiased. The biography could use more information on Randal as a cartoonist and an image would enhance your article, but other than those two things you're looking good!