User:Micheladitmore/Superiority complex/RyanMurphey 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) Micheladitmore
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Superiority complex

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not sure what He has added so how would I know. Although the lead does seem to cover what is in the article
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Pretty straight forward.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? I think the information is
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? A good majority of the last name Adler is mispelled throughout the sections.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? not that I can find
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

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? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? I assume so but I am not going to check all the dates on them.
 * 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? Sort of Lot of misspelled last names.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes a lot of misspelled Adler.
 * 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? no.
 * Are images well-captioned? no.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? no images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no images.

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.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? not really could use a lot of work probably.
 * 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.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Good.
 * How can the content added be improved? Fix the spelling errors.