User:LPScanlon/Sign painting/JBmerlin Peer Review

General info

 * I am peer reviewing LPScanlon's additions to the article on Sign Painting.
 * Here is the link: User:LPScanlon/Sign painting

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
The article technically has no lead, because the article has no sections. This could be improved by separating a short lead paragraph from the main section of the article. LPScanlon has not yet drafted any structuring for the article, leaving the article somewhat difficult to read.

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?

Content evaluation
Yes, the content is relevant, and fairly up-to-date. LPScanlon is correcting some oversimplification in the current by noting a resurgence in historical techniques -- nice job!

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 article is mostly neutral and balanced, but as stated above, makes some generalizations on the decline of sign painting. LPScanlon is correcting this, and their corrections have a good neutral tone.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Citations for the current article are spotty; not all claims are cited, but those that are include working links. LPScanlon has included working citations for their additions so far.

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 is well-written, concise, and clear. However, the article could benefit from more structure, perhaps separating sections on historical and contemporary sign painting.

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
There is one image in the original article. LPScanlon has not yet added media, but if they have time, adding more images could enhance this article on such a visual topic.

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
Yes, the added content has improved the article. It is well-written and factual, and makes the article more balanced. The added content could be improved by including some images and media, and by structuring the article (including the new content) into sections.