User:Jazharmon/John Carlson/Jazharmon 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)
 * Chanandrew6
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, the Lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the articles topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
The Lead was already relatively thorough so my classmate did not feel the need to review it, but there is information about his personal life that is not mentioned in the lead such as his wife and son.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content added it up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, there is no content added that does not belong or is missing.

Content evaluation
Overall the content added is relevant and is well-written. It adds more depth to the article and it is very insightful.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, there are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is very neutral and it is evident that Andrew was not attempting to create any bias or give any misleading information.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are up-to-date and credible, leaving the article much more relevant and easy to read.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content added is well-written, clear, concise, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, the content added does not 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?
 * Yes, the content added is well-organized and broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

Organization evaluation
The organization is definitely evident. The new information added is relevant and well written.

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

My peer did not add any new 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?

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 content added improves the overall quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I think the strengths of the content added is that it makes the article much more credible due to the vast amount of new information added.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think the article can be improved by adding a few things to the lead.