User:Rme.ust7/Andreas Stefik/Pfromberger Peer Review

Lead is good, explains topic at hand what the article will focus on and very concise. Content is very relative and up to date I believe, I don't think we have to worry about underrepresentation here. I do think the content added her is neutral doesn't sway one way or the other. I do not notice any persuasion however, the program he created does seem very cool and can help out a lot of people learn about computer science who before would not have been able to do so. The secondary source is a reliable source! There are only 2 but sometimes less is more when they are very solid sources. Very clear and concise, I changed just a few words to make it less wordy but its great. No images here, could be a good idea to add one of the person of interest. It does have two sources, maybe a 3rd would be nice but I don't think it's necessary. It follows other articles patterns nicely. I added a wiki link to explain more about what Quorum really is. Also, limited the times you said "the program Quorum" say it once and then we know it's a program so just call it Quorum. Strengths are that you talk about his most popular work, it would be nice to learn more about him but some of these people aren't that special and it's hard to find more info. Also, the source the info comes from is a very reliable journal. A few other points of what he does would be nice but like I said sometimes it is hard to come by.

1) This article does a great job of introducing the subject and explaining his biggest achievement. Also, does a great job of explaining why that achievement is so special.

2) I would try to find one or two more things to touch on about this guy but sometimes that is very hard to do with these people. Also, like i said before just a little more concise like not saying the program Quorum every time.

3) I think its just beefing it up a little, probably find one or two more sources of information about him.

4) I think I too could find more info to beef up my article as well as add a few wiki links to other wiki pages to help describe and define certain parts of the article.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)