User:QueerComics123/Theo van den Boogaard/Niapiamia 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? (QueerComics123)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:QueerComics123/Theo van den Boogaard

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? The lead is concise.

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? The article is still being updated so there might be some content missing. There is no content that does not belong.

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, everything is represented equally.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content is neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are no external links added. There are some things in the article that are linked to other Wikipedia articles.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The links to other Wikipedia articles are thorough.
 * Are the sources current? There are no external links added yet.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? There are no external links added yet.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content added is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no grammatical or spelling errors. There is a missing punctuation in the first paragraph of "Work from 1967-2000"
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? The picture of Theo Bogart is not captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

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 than it was before.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The contributed works of the artist and the things he is doing currently.
 * How can the content added be improved? Add source links and to have the article completed.