User:Langfordchaz168/STAB/Tubbsofsteel 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) Langfordchaz168
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Langfordchaz168/STAB

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
I think the writer wrote leads that accurately reflected the topics discussed, and I believe all the introductory sentences are quite good. I like that the leads are concise and get straight to the point.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, I think it is quite relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Most of the sources used are relevant.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think there can be more writing done on the projects that STAB did to get a clearer understanding of what their goals were but overall most of the content is good.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, most of the content covered is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there isn't.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think most viewpoints are equally represented but there could be more written on how the Russian people viewed the group if possible.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, I did not see any.

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? The sources uses reflect the content well.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, they are.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is, no complains.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The articles presented did have images that showed relevant visual info.
 * Are images well-captioned? No images were presented.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? 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? Yes, it does.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There is only a few sources but I believe the writer will add more later on, but all the sources accurately represent the information.
 * 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? Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes it does.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes I think the content added increased the quality of the article but I feel more should be added later on for more detailed explanations.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added gives good insight into the topics the person was assigned towards.
 * How can the content added be improved? Perhaps more detailed explanations.