User:Kuklo018/Freddy McConnell/Donvonvononavan Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kuklo018


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Kuklo018/Freddy McConnell


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Freddy McConnell

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:

The lead is after the contents box, which feels wrong. It could maybe include a bit to mention the court case segment of the article

Content:

The content of the article seems to be comprehensive and relevant to this course's goal

Tone:

There doesn't seem to be any bias in the writing. The whole thing reads like a Wikipedia article.

Sources:

All of the references seem to be from the same website. It might be good to diversify the sources. Additionally, a few of them are written by the man on whom the article is about. I believe that counts as a primary source. I think that I remember someone saying to use those cautiously on Wikipedia. Organization:

The article is laid out in a way that makes sense.

Overall:

It seems to be a pretty good draft. Expanding the list of sources to include more reliable secondary sources would do it well. An info box underneath the picture with biographical information such as: date, place of birth, etc. would really tie the whole thing together.