User:Jazharmon/Anna Blackburne-Rigsby/Kransom34 Peer Review

1Peer 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)
 * Jaz Harmon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * https://docs.google.com/document/d/15Xwb3Nj3JtILmTDaVKHDJas3hufIUL_SvfbPMBl1rgM/edit?ts=5f282af7

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 is a good and appropriate length. She added a very good amount of information and new content and it clearly describes the articles topic. He does give a brief description of the article's major sections, but it doesn't overshare, or include extra nonessential information.

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
Yes, the content Jaz added is relevant and adds necessary details to the article. It is up to date. She added clarifying information like specific months. From seeing what the article looked like before Jaz's additions and edits, she added very useful content, and made the article much more full and informative.

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
Yes, the tone is neutral, and it follows Wikipedia's guidelines well. I don't feel there's any biased toward a particular position, I feel as though all the information Jaz added is factual. Because this article is about a person, it's hard for there to be multiple viewpoints represented, so I think the represented viewpoints are appropriate and doesn't sway the reader in one position or another.

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
It appears that Jaz needs to add a lot of sources and citation to the article, but that could just be because she copy and pasted it into google. Her newly added information has sources at the end of them, but I think when she adds it to the actual article, she needs to provide a link because as of right now she just has the last names which is helpful.

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 clear and easy to read. I still think the article is a little short in length, but all the information added makes the article better. There are a couple grammatical errors, but they can be fixed very easily.

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
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?
 * 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The article overall feels more complete and professional. Jaz's edits and additions made the article appear much more reliable. The new content can be improved by making sure it's cited correctly onto the live article, and fixing small grammatical errors.