User:Jenna Deutch/Faye Orlove/JAF081 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? Jenna Deutch
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jenna Deutch/Faye Orlove

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it touches on parts of the article that are later addressed.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it serves as a good overview.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, most of the major topics have been touched on.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Basic information about the subject is in this section and is not repeated in any other sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added is biographical information about a local female artist.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, there are sources and topics dating all the way to as recent as this year.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, all of the information seems relevant to the life of the subject of her article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, it lists information on the subject.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, most information comes from reliable secondary sources while other information comes from the subject of the article herself.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes, they all seem to be fairly recent
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * 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? Yes, it is a photo of the subject of the article
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, there is a caption with basic information explaining who is in the photo
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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? Yes and it also includes information directly from the subject herself.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? It accurately represents all available material 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? Yes, it includes a photo with captions, many links, and proper heading format.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content added makes up the entirety of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Many details are given about the personal life of the subject and many works of the subject are linked for a reader to go look at.
 * How can the content added be improved? Some of the details don't seem particularly relevant to the overall focus of the article.

Overall evaluation:
It is very well written and it is easy to tell that a good amount of research has been conducted.