User:Jazharmon/Anna Blackburne-Rigsby/Chanandrew6 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? Jazharmon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15Xwb3Nj3JtILmTDaVKHDJas3hufIUL_SvfbPMBl1rgM/edit?usp=sharing

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
- the lead wasn't changed.

- It has an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic.

- The lead does not contain a brief description of the article's major sections

- No, the article contains information present in the article

- The lead is concise, but it may be too concise. It's one sentence

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
- The content is relevant to the topic

- the content is up to date

- all of the content belongs in the article

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?

Tone and balance evaluation
- the content is neutral

- there are no biased claims

- N/A

- the article does not attempt to persuade the reader in any way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
- there wasn't any in text citation added to the new information

- I don't have access to a works cited

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
- the content is written fine.

- just don't use future tense like in the personal life section. No spelling errors

- the three major sections (early life, career, personal life) are fine. Definitely better than having early life and career combined like on the original article

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * 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
- there are no images in the article

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?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
- the content provided much more insight on Blackburne-RIgsby's life and career. Much more complete and informative than what was there before.

- The content that was added was added to all three sections to create a more complete article versus just adding to one section.

- The content added is fine but maybe remove the future tense in the final section.