User:Jackemm000/Adolf Hitler's Art Collection/Parkerlamont 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? Jackemm000
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jackemm000/Adolf Hitler's Art Collection

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The very first sentence and lead is not updated nor has any relevant information about the article or contents.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? it briefly describes the background of Hitler's art collection
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Neither. should expand enough to summarize what the page is about in some detail

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The background and history of the topic is relevant however the actual art collection is not up to date yet
 * Is the content added up-to-date? I believe so. It is a history of something decades ago and seems to be up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Needs more of Hitler's artwork and collection
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It does. They described individuals and families who the German art thieves stole from.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Seems very neutral, despite how it speaks of Hitler and Nazi Germany I was surprised to see how neutral and historical it sounded. Great job.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Claims and accusations seem credible in the context of who did what
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not that I notice
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the author is very objective and neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Sources are diverse and not from generic appearing sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? The sources all have different dates and are from different histories and museums.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Appears to be equally representational
 * Check a few links. Do they work? the 1st and 4th links did not work for me. the others did.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Very easy to read. they stay on topic with each heading
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None
 * 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? They added very good images so far of soldiers retrieving paintings are stolen art. However not much art highlighting Hitler's actual collection
 * Are images well-captioned? The image of Hitler and the first image of soldiers holding art are not captioned
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Appears so
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. All on the right side so it is easy to see and organized

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?
 * 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. The article details a good history and still needs some work with the actual meat of the topic
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It seems like a deep topic with history that adds to the actual topic
 * How can the content added be improved? Making the images directly tied to sections in the article so we can understand the context of them and visualize more what the article is about.

Overall evaluation
Overall i think the article is coming together really well! For a first draft it is clear what the article is about and they did their homework.