User:LanaCarolan/Evgeny Shtorn/Langfordchaz168 Peer Review

General info

 * Review of LanaCarolan's article on Evgeny Shtorn
 * User:LanaCarolan/sandbox

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 lead is excellently written and gives a solid overview of what you have written. The introductory sentence nicely summarizes the topic of Evgeny Shtorn. At the moment, you have an excellent introduction, although I would consider as you write adding more into the lead as needed to cover the information you cover in your article. It appears that you will have a very comprehensive article by the time it is finished given the headings you have created. The lead at the moment is quite concise, although again you may need to add to it depending on what you write further on.

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
So far what you have written is well done, it is all relevant and valid. What you clearly plan to do is what I was going to recommend. Obviously you will fill in the other headings which is what I was going to point out you should do. Adding more information will only serve to strengthen your article, and clearly you already have some sort of plan to add information later on. With regards to content that is all I think that you should add.

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
You have done a good job in making your writing very objective and free of bias. I would not add anything particularly in your current state of writing.

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
The sources you have used appear to be solid sources. The sources are current and the links work. I might consider if you can find them, trying to obtain a few more sources just to validate your work more and to find more information. In addition, you do not have to put the full citation in more than once, you can make reference to the same citation using a note more than once. This way you only have one full citation with multiple references to the same entry in your bibliography.

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
You have done well in organizing your work so far and there are no problems with the organization of the writing or grammar and spelling. You appear to plan to add more sections using headings which is a good plan. If you follow your headings you created it should be well organized and easy to follow.

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 as we have not covered images yet

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
One of the challenges you may have with regards to the sources is the fact that your sources are probably not considered scholarly. The sources are definitely reliable but it may be a challenge calling them scholarly. You have done a good job in adding links to other Wikipedia pages as well as info boxes. These help people learn about prerequisite information they may not necessarily know beforehand. Your article does look like a proper Wikipedia page with what you have done so far.

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
I think that you are definitely on the right track with your wikipedia article. You are an excellent, objective writer in this article and have done well with editing. I would continue to add more content to make it more indepth as well as trying to perhaps find more scholarly sources. I would also fix your bibliography so there is only one entry per source and simply cite the same source multiple times. Great job so far and keep up the good work!