User:Joshuamenard95/Gali-Dana Singer/LanaCarolan 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? Joshuamenard95
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Joshuamenard95/Gali-Dana Singer

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?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes (content missing - more info needed, info that is there is thorough)

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * 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? No (there are no references on this article yet)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No references yet
 * Are the sources current? N/A
 * Check a few links. Do they work? N/A (no links)

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, reads well.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes and no, there should be more subsections and more information. For example, the beginning section could have more introductory information about her life and work with more general phrasing. Then the wiki editor could delve into specifics within an organized subsection entitled perhaps "Personal Life" and/or "Acclaimed Literary Works" etc. Overall good information to start with.

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? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? 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? No (no references)
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Detailed background information on the authors literary works and early life
 * How can the content added be improved? More structural organization needed, more references

Overall evaluation
6/10 - references and sections strongly advised, good information so far