User:Picoides/National Geographic Field Guide to Birds of North America/Fusionhonestduplex 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? Picoides
 * Link to draft you're reviewing

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? No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Lead evaluation
'''I liked the lead. It is concise and effective. See final conclusions for more info.'''

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? No.

Content evaluation
'''Obviously we will all be adding to our articles, but I don't believe it's long enough in the current state. Not a problem.'''

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * 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.

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone is good, didn't see anything that stuck out as biased.

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.

Sources and references evaluation
I didn't take an exhaustive look at the sources, but they look fine.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * 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
Nice use of organization, including the section for the editions.

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? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation
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.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The sources seem good.
 * 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? It looks a bit bare-bones at the moment, which is fine.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

New Article Evaluation
'''I don't think it's in question that this article is notable and worth writing about. I have faith that it will meet all requirements.'''

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?
 * I liked how you had a section for each edition of the book. The Lead, while simple, is solidly great at doing what it needs to do.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * For the section with the editions, I would recommend that you look into templates that might let you add an infobox for statistics about the edition instead of writing out the contributors and length statistics longhand. The covers might be good images to add that would let us see the progression of art from the 40 years this has been printed.