User:Jeorgiaobrien/George John Seaton/Sam.Herrera234 Peer Review

General info
(Jeorgiaobrien)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Jeorgiaobrien/George John Seaton
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):n/a

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * It has been updated
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * It is a good introductory sentence that transitions into the main points of the article, but it needs the the birth and death date of the outcast
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The article lead covers every facet of the article
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It does not
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise and leads straight to the point

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content added is definitely relevant to the subject.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content is all new so it is up-to-date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All the content present in the article is relevant and provides further context to the life of the outcast.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * This article deals with the oppression of the a prisoner on a notorious penal colony.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content is neutral and does not have a tone that favors any particular side. The facts are presented straight without any opinion.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article is more of a summary of the life and does not provide an opinion.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * While there are no viewpoints or opinions acknowledged in the article, the article does not suppress any view.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * It does not

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content was easy to follow and navigate through the life of the outcast.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There were not 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?
 * Each sub-section dealt with an important aspect of the life of the outcast and was formatted in an effective way.

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


 * 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 for 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?
 * The sources I searched up were independent of the subject and were reliable.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * It provides a list that reflects the available material on the subject. Since there are not extensive amounts of sources on the outcast, it represents the literature that is written 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?
 * It contains all the section headings, but needs some images and more links to available wikipedia articles.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * It does not have any

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * This is a new article but the information added provides sufficient material on the subject.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The depth of the information provided on the outcast give enough material for the reader to have an understanding of who the person is.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Add on the legacy and add more references.