User:Jsprunger/Zebedee Armstrong/Wkres Peer Review

General info

 * Jsprunger
 * User:Jsprunger/Zebedee Armstrong

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * The lead reflects new content added.
 * The introductory sentence concisely and clearly defines topic.
 * The lead does not yet describe the article's sections.
 * The lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * The lead is concise.

Lead evaluation:
The lead clearly and concisely introduces and defines the topic. It should likely describe the article's sections and limit its content to information present in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * All of the content added is relevant to the topic.
 * The content added is up-to-date.
 * There is no missing content or content that does not belong.

Content evaluation:
All of the content added is relevant, up-to-date, and does not miss content or include anything which does not belong.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * The added content is neutral.
 * No claims appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * No viewpoints are either overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * 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 neutral throughout. All of the claims are balanced and do not attempt to persuade the reader to any particular position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * All of the new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * The sources are thorough.
 * The sources are current.
 * The links all work.

Sources and references evaluation:
All of the content is sourced, thorough, and current.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * The content added is well-written.
 * The content added does not have any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * The content added is well-organized.

Organization evaluation:
All of the content is well-written and -organized.

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?

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:


 * The content added has improved the overall quality of the article.
 * The content added gives more information about the artist and the context of the works.
 * Images might be included to enhance readers' understanding of the topic.

Overall evaluation:
The article is clear, concise, neutral, well-sourced, -written, and -organized. In the final draft, the lead should likely outline the article's sections. It might prove useful to readers to include images of works.