User:Neve.Toth/Lily Inglis/KeanuSalimi 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? Neve.Toth
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Neve.Toth/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, lead has new information valuable to understanding the page.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, begins with her birthplace and date.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, a very brief description of Lily's achievements are initially stated.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything stated in the lead is re-stated in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead is concise, short and straight forward.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added goes further into detail on Lily's early life and career, as well as an accurate listing of her work.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes the content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All the content that is there, belongs there, and the article is detailed where there is little missing content.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content is neutral. All of the sentences are guided by referenced facts that are not re-worded or paraphrased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? None, the work is very neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Lily's impact and work was expressed in the article quite well
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? None, the content added solidifies Lily's life timeline, none of which works to persuade the reader.

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? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, no issue.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content is both well written and well structured for me to understand and comprehend.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Very little, although it is a draft, proof reading and changing words around to suit better descriptions may be suitable in the future.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, broken down into sections of early life and career, projects, publishes, and awards - clear to understand.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media - No images yet.


 * 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?

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? Yes the article is more complete, concise and comprehensive - however both articles have no photos yet.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths are the Lead section as well as the early life and career section - both straight to the point and very comprehensive to the reader.
 * How can the content added be improved? Reference in texts