User:Kimlek/Claude Chauchetière/Rakin21 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? (kimlek)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Draft:Claude Chauchetière

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes, other page was deleted.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I believe it is concise

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? Not fully done with all sections

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? not that I can see so far
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Maybe talks too much about the relationships with Tekakwitha, because there are multiple sections on it, but they havent been done yet
 * 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? All sources are by the same person which could be a problem
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? of the current sources yes
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

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? all good
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes, written well and when all of it is added it will flow well

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 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? I think there was an article but it was deleted, but yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? probably could use more
 * 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? yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Will be when done
 * What are the strengths of the content added? good writing that flows well overall
 * How can the content added be improved? more sources and finish up the last parts of the article

==== Overall evaluation I think that this page is laid out very well and based on what is already in the article it seems very on topic. I think there just needs to be more sources, and obviously needs to finish up the rest of the page. ====