User:Radroni21/Kenneth Oakley/RoxannaDiaz024 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? (Radroni21)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Radroni21/Kenneth Oakley

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
''I think the lead has gotten some really useful and insightful updates considering the original article did not have much information to initially go off of. I do think the article could benefit with an introductory sentence that just briefly mentions his education and other aspects of his life that you go into detail later on in your entry. Otherwise, all of your content is consistent with the guiding questions for this portion and has a good amount of detail without overplaying your sources.''

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
''Your content is definitely relevant to the topic and seems up to date. I like that you structured it in such a way where you mention general details about his life first and then proceed into the piltdown hoax.''

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
''I think you did a great job with the tone and balance of your entry! Considering he played a vital role in the exposure of the hoax, it can be easy to portray it in a biased way, but this was not the case. You did a great job stating a neutral position within the article and nothing felt either overrepresented or underrepresented. At no point did I get the impression that you were trying to be persuasive in any way.''

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
''I thought all of your sources were credible, especially since some were archives from the past and others from academic articles. I thought it was really interesting that you were able to find an old newspaper excerpt to include in your entry, it adds a different perspective! Additionally, when checking all of your sources, they all worked just fine as well.''

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
''I appreciate how well organized and thought out you made your entry. Considering the limited information the original article had, the content you provided does not feel repetitive or drug on for the purpose of making the article appear longer. As far as I could tell, I didn't catch any grammatical or spelling errors so that's good! I think it was great that you gave each main idea its own section rather than lumping into one large paragraph as it flows better.''

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?

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
''Overall, I think you did a great job updating this article and definitely transformed it into an insightful entry to read. Going into detail with the piltdown hoax adds another dimension to your entry that really gives detail and perspective into his work rather than just casually mentioning it. I can't really think of anything to improve the content besides maybe finding more sources if that's possible? That is just being nit-picky though.''