User:JAF081/Jen Seidel/Jenna Deutch 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) JAF081
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:JAF081/Jen Seidel

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? It is still being worked on, but the basics about her topic is there.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It needs more of an "introduction" but the facts about who she is and what she does is clear and concise.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not at the moment because it is still at the beginning stage of the draft.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Not entirely, but it is very concise.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Definitely to the point.

Lead evaluation
Overall, there needs to be a few more sentences but once the information is found, it will be solid.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it is all about the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it is all up-to-date and relevant.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is still content that needs to be added to add more to Seidel's family life and about what body painting represents, but all the content so far belongs.

Content evaluation
The content is good so far, there just needs to be some more to fully encapsulate what Seidel is all about.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The sources have not been cited yet, although she has created her bibliography. Still working on sources overal though.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources that provided the information do reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current? They are as current as they can be with the most updates sources possible.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? I am not able to at this time.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources still need to added, but as long as they reflect the facts presented, they should be great.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content provided says what needs to be said in a very concise manner.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not the my knowledge.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? While there will be more content, the content that is there is very clearly organized by section.

Organization evaluation
The organization is very strong and easy to read.

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
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation
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? I am assuming so, but there still needs to be the reference list.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The literature on the subject is definitely getting there, but the list of sources still needs work.
 * 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? It will once it is formatted fully. For the time being, it is on the right track with the breakdown of sections.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? They will, I am assuming.

New Article Evaluation
It still has work but is on the right track at this moment in time.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes absolutely. The content helps shape the article in its entirety.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? All of the content helps explain Seidel and what she strives to do and achieve, which is the point of the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? There just needs to be more!

Overall evaluation
It is on the right track, it just needs some more content, to be formatted, and have the reference list.