User:KatieRob27/Capricorn Records/Kerrymonique 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? KatieRob27
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:KatieRob27/Capricorn Records

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?The lead looks good and reflects the new content clearly.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead introductory sentence is concise and understandable.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does include a good description and gives an overall picture of what the article in depicts in its entirety.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? To be fair the article goes into more detail after the lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise, and stands on its own. It gives a concise overview of the articles topic.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Content is good and interesting and flows well.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the content is up-to-date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?  In the section After Founding section there is a date section - 1970 that needs more information.  However, think the author is still editing.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The tone of the article seems neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are no claims that appear to be biased.
 * 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? The content does not influence the reader and gives good information about the record companies history.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Good, gives lots of references that are credible.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current and present reliable
 * Check a few links. Do they work? I've checked a few links and they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content of the article concise, clear and well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not find 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? The content is well organized and seems to flow.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? I think the author is still working on images. The original does have a picture of the label cover.
 * Are images well-captioned? No image on the sandbox page
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images are laid out as of yet as state above.

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, The article has not infringed on any notability policy requirements.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The list of sources are incorporate elements relating to the main topic and represents factual events well.
 * 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? The article contains, infoboxes, heading and features of similar articles etc.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? The article links to impressive artists, founders and time periods.

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 is directly relatable to the original article. The writers ease of using text boxes, references, made it clear the edits made were to make the article better.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The purpose of the article was easily ascertained in the beginning of the introduction.  The writer used good sources to support the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? The writer might want to add pictures and more information about the artist (mabey more links about Otis Redding etc.).

==== Overall evaluation - The writer picked an interesting article, added good content, and maintained an impartial point of view. This article will help entrepreneurs paving the way by reading the history of this record company forefather (Capricorn Records). ====