User:LMNOP2020/Albert Brudzewski/Lolbud0 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? LMNOP2020
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=935433682&diff=992343144

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include 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?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
It seems like the lead was not updated to the new information that was added. There is only one sentence that describes who Albert Brudzewski was, but there is no brief explanations on the major topics present in the article. Though it is concise, it is lacking introductory information on the remaining article, especially the newly added information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant to the topic and seems to be up-to-date. It does not seem like there is any content that is missing or that does not belong. Additionally, there does not seem to be a problem with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is neutral and does not provide any claims that are heavily biased towards any particular position. The viewpoints are equal and overall, are not overrepresented or underrepresented. I did not find the content attempting to persuade the reader in any sense.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The few links that I clicked on worked, and the resources themselves are reputable. The sources also seem to be thorough in the topic that is being presented, and are also current. Though, there was a link added in the middle of the article, which seemed out of place and I felt like it would have been better to make a footnote instead.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added 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?

Organization evaluation
The content added is well-written, clear, and easy to read. There was no apparent grammatical or spelling errors within the new content, and overall, the organization was well and reflective of the major topic points within the article.

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
My peer did not seem to add any new images or media to the article.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article seems to be more complete. Some of the strengths that were added to the article was additional viewpoints of Albert Brudzewski on specific topics. As for improving the content, I would say integrating it into the article in a more natural and inconspicuous. The added content, while informative and well-written, seems out of place with the current article. With added information and transitions, this article is well on its way in becoming complete.