User:PrettyCoolTool98/Charles N. Darrah/Qmack97 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? PrettyCoolTool98
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:PrettyCoolTool98/Charles N. Darrah

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The Lead has been updated and reflects new content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead does include a introductory sstatement that describes Charles Darrah well.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead has a contents window that shows the articles major sections. The Lead doesn't describe the articles.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead includes the books Charles has worked on but it does not present his academics.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content is current and up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is some content missing in the "books" section that has not been filled in yet, but has headings.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are not any claims that appear biased towards a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are not any over or underrepresented viewpoints.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content is very objective and is only convincing the student that Charles Darrah is well educated, and has done credible work in his field.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * 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?
 * The sources are through and reflect literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources are not diverse, but they have the right to be because most sources are from the actual person being researched (Charles Darrah).
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is clear and well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is well organized by a few sections including: academics, books, and career projects.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are not any images.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No images available.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No images available.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No images available.

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 the article meets Wikipedias notability requirements.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The list of sources are not exhaustive, the author can work on making the most of the articles and providing more information in his sections.
 * 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?
 * This article looks similar to other articles.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * The article does not link to other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The article is not complete yet, there is still room to work on the sections Books and Career/Projects.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The lead is very strong. It is complete and discusses what will be in the overall article very well.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content can be improved by explaining more about the work that Charles Darrah has been involved in. There needs to be information on the books he has written along with his career projects.

Overall evaluation
The content that has been given so far is good. The author just needs to finish writing his content.