User:Krystianagiron/Radical evil/Sihern Han 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) Krystianagiron
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Krystianagiron/Radical evil

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead has been updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead's introductory sentence is concise, but doesn't necessarily clearly describe the article's topic. Radical evil as a phrase doesn't add significant meaning, and its relation to the term "radix malorum" is also insignificant, as uninformed readers will not know what that is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead seems to lay out a basic understanding of the article but is not written in a way that outlines the article's major sections (e.g. Origin and Categorical Imperative are not addressed in the Lead).
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
The Lead is concise and introduces the topic. However, it could better outline/match the content of the body of the article. There are also some grammatical errors, including starting sentences with "By ____, ______".

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?Yes the content has to do with radical evil.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content added is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.

Content evaluation
The content is good.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content added appears to be neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * 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? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
In my opinion, the discussion of criticisms in the academic community is fair and neutral, but may be seen by some readers as biased against Kant.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
Good sources.

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? Yes, there are small grammatical and spelling errors throughout.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the organization made sense to me.

Organization evaluation
Well written and organized minus a few grammatical/spelling errors.

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?

Images and media evaluation
N/A

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?

New Article Evaluation
N/a

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, compared to what the article was before (basically nothing), this article has way more useful information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The usefulness/accessibility of the information.
 * How can the content added be improved? More research and a fuller explanation of the topic in layman's terms.

Overall evaluation
Good work, some work to be done.