User:Randallcj3/Adam Long (golfer)/Zijieke 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)
 * Randallcj3
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Randallcj3/Adam Long (golfer)

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
The Lead been updated to reflect the new content. The Lead includes an introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's topic, but it may be too specific. The Lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections and does not include information not presented in article.

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
Content added is relevant and up to date. There is no missing content.

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
The content is neutral. There are no biases.

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
Content is backed up by secondary sources. Not sure if the sources are reliable (e.g. 18Strong.com). The links all work and seem to be current. Other sources seem to be reliable.

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
The content may have small grammatical or punctuational errors but is overall easy to read. The content seems organized. The article may improve if there was more information added on Early Life and PGA Tour Canada.

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?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images.

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?

New Article Evaluation
The article is supported by at least 2-3 reliable sources. The sources seem to represent the subject well.

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
The article was improved significantly. More content was added to his Early Life, Collegiate Career and Professional Life. The article could improve if there were images added to the page. I noticed that one part of the article stated "So far in 2020." Maybe this could be improved by just saying "In 2020..." Also, "After making the cut in only one of his first four start" could be better if it was "making the cut in one of his four start." Some parts may seem like there is emphasis on how great the subject of the article is (less subjective).