User:Osa225/RI Works Program/MrrrAndersonnn 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)
 * Osa
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Osa225/RI Works Program

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * No

Lead evaluation
9/10

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I can only assume so. The draft I am review seems short. 3 distinct sections is fine, though I believe each section ought to have more depth, and be broken down further for clarity. The final section, which one could reasonably assume to be the longest, is only 3 lines of text. I would say more content is a must.

Content evaluation
6/10

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * It would appear so
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Underrepresented possibly, but reading the articles not alerted me to the possibility.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
8/10

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, although some of the sources are lengthy and will require time too did through to confirm the accuracy of the information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, however I would strongly recommend more sources. 5 does not seem to be enough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
6/10

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Somewhat. Sentence structure could absolutely use a walkthrough. Some sentences are not well written.
 * 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

Organization evaluation
6/10

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * NA
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * NA

Images and media evaluation
NA

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 exhaustive at all, the bare minimum for source count. I would strongly recommend including more information from more sources.
 * 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?
 * No
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * No

New Article Evaluation
6/10

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The article seems like a quick walkthrough of the subject, and not an in depth coverage of the subject as a whole.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Article is concise, gets the information across swiftly, is neutral, and has some reliable sources.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More content, more sources. From there, break down that content into more subsections.

Overall evaluation
7/10