User:Kransom34/Isis King/Jazharmon 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? (provide username)
 * Kransom34
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead initially had substantial information on the most important parts of the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead includes 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?
 * No, the Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
The lead is clear and concise. It gives a clear picture of who the article is about/what the article may contain. Although it does not give a brief overview of each section, it had a good amount of information to give a clear picture.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content added is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, there is no content that is missing or does not belong.

Content evaluation
The content is also clear and well-written. It is dense and obviously much more informational than the original article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, there are viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content added attempted to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Tone and balance evaluation
There is no bias and the article is very factual and neutral. It is clear Kelsey strayed away from any type of particular position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all the new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are thorough and they do reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources Kelsey added fit the criteria for proper citations.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content added is well-written, clear, concise, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, the content added does not have 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?
 * Yes, the content added is well-organized.

Organization evaluation
All of the content added in each individual section is relevant to the section, letting the article be very clear and easy to understand.

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

Kelsey did not add any 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:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the article is more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content added is that it adds much more depth to the article and presents it as much more credible.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The only thing I can see it to simply add more citations.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is much much better than it was before in all aspects. Citing "every sentence" would be the only change I would make.