User:Kcschultz18/Edward B. Lewis/Khdoyle18 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? Kcschultz18 and Anheath19
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Anheath19/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has not been updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The current lead does a good job of including brief, concise details.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does not include this. Maybe this could be worked on in the sandbox.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead only included the topic sentence.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
The lead is very brief in the article and could use some touching up. Adding a short description of the information that is presenting the article would help the lead be great.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant, but it doesn't include a lot about Lewis's research which was one of the goals to improve.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Content about Lewis's research is missing.

Content evaluation
There needs to be more content specifically about Lewis's research.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? the content is very neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There is no bias in the article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? All viewpoints are represented equally.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content is neutral.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the article is very neutral and does not need to be altered.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The content seems to be backed up by a secondary source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There is only one source, so I believe that there must be at least one more source that could help reflect available literature as well.
 * Are the sources current? The source is current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The link does work, but it does not take your directly to the article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no errors in the article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The research section is still missing.

Images and Media (Does not apply: no media added)
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 (Does not apply: Not a new article)
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:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is more complete but could use some more information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strength is that there is definitely more information about Lewis's life added to this article.
 * How can the content added be improved? BY finding more information about his research.

Overall evaluation
I believe that this is a great start to a sandbox, but there definitely needs to be more information about his research.