User:Oludara Orederu/Cartesian Circle/JEby1 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) Oludara Orederu
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Oludara Orederu/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes they have added information to lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the article already contains an introductory sentence that clearly describes the articles topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead only gives a small link to the articles sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead does not include information not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very well written but may be able to be broken up to create another section.

Lead evaluation
The lead of this article is detailed and gives a excellent account of what the Cartesian Circle is. Since it is so detailed it might be good to make it a new section leaving a more concise summary of this great explanation for the lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes the content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content added is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do not believe there is any content that does not belong. The content in the article could probably just be slightly expanded upon.

Content evaluation
The content of this article is well described and organized.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added to this article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I do not believe any claims are biased to a position, the content of the article is simply explaining different claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think there is a good balance of viewpoints being expressed equally.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content added to this article does not try to persuade the reader in favor of one position over another.

Tone and balance evaluation
I believe the nature of this article already contains different claims but the content added is well written, meaning that it clearly explains the views without trying to persuade readers.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all new content is backed up by reliable secondary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes the sources reflect the topic thoroughly.
 * Are the sources current? Yes the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The first link works and the second one does as well if you use your institution login.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources used in the content added are relevant to the topic and reliable.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content added is very easy to understand and describes the topic in a concise way.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, the content added does not have any grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is organized the lead may be broken down into another section though.

Organization evaluation
The information added is well written and concise. Other than what I have already mentioned about the lead the article is well structured.

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
No images were added to the article.

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? I believe the content added to this article is actually very valuable in being able to actually understand the concept the article is about.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added is easy to understand and clearly describes the Cartesian Circle in a way even someone who doesn't know about philosophy could comprehend. The content is also well balanced and is written in a non-persuasive way.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content of the article may just be expanded upon and the lead be made more concise. The information added to the lead is essential for understanding the concept but may be placed in a new section in order to make the lead more concise.

Overall evaluation
The content added to this article gives this article the ability to be understood by the masses. Philosophy is a difficult discipline being able to explain complex concepts in a concise way is an impressive feat. The content added is throughly explained and includes the definitions of things like the truth rule, which will help people better understand the main topic of the Cartesian circle. The content is organized and balanced while also coming from reliable sources. This is awesome work so far!

The lead to this article has very important information for explaining the topic, this information might be better placed in it's own section. I think this because the lead should be a shorter summary of the information that is placed there now. The explanation added to the article is articulated well. I believe that the content added is relevant to the article topic which is super important. I think that the newly added content that I have reviewed has shown me I could probably edit my own article to be more understandable for the masses.

~JEby1