User:Robinfreiberg/Olodumare/GrDVillarreal 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? Robinfreiberg
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Robinfreiberg/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes they have been updated to reflect the new additions that will be made by this peer.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? This peer is adding a new paragraph addition to the original article, and the way they transition from paragraph to paragraph is concise and clear.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes they do. They mention and explain how the paragraph they're adding is about the story pertaining to the religion.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? They include information that is properly cited in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise to the point where it doesn't feel overwhelming or too empty.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content the peer edited and added in is relevant to the topic since they're adding more context to the page, and thus giving more information for the public in regards to the religion.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content added is up-to-date since the sources they provided are not too old.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No content added or edited seems to be out of place, and everything seems to fit in just right.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral, and I sense no negativity or persuasion while reading the edits and additions.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I sensed no bias towards any sides while reading my peer's sandbox edits.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? The viewpoints that are brought up aren't under nor over represented. As previously mentioned nothing seems overly explained or underly explained.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? When reading my peer's sandbox, I never felt persuaded once. I just felt that I was learning more about the religion, and that's it.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All content that is cited with a source is backed up with a reliable source. From looking throughout the sources, none seem sketchy or unreliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources provided do reflect the available literature on the topic. Sources range from webistes to books to academic literature pieces.
 * Are the sources current? they are current in the context of being recent in the last few years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All links seems to work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is concise, clear, and easy to read. I never once felt confused by the format of the information since it followed the original format of the article.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? From what I could tell there was no grammatical or spelling errors. Everything seemed to be double checked before being posted.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is broken down into sections. It is broken down into the next paragraph section that follows the original first, and only, paragraph.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No image added.
 * Are images well-captioned? No image added.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No image added.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No image added.

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? Not a news article.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Not a news article.
 * 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? Not a news article.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Not a news article.

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? I believe the strength of the content added is how the information added is vital to the already existed article. I say this because the original article is bare and only has one paragraph, so the fact that my peer is adding context to the stories of the religion is important since it helps educate the public more about the reader. Not to mention they structure the article in the format of the already existing article, so no information will be confused when read.
 * How can the content added be improved? I really don't have any advice since they 're doing everything right. I guess my only suggestion is to add more information, but that's only because my peer is already working with a near-empty original article.

Overall evaluation
Overall I believe that the person I was assigned to peer-review has made a well-written, balanced, and concise final draft to his assigned article. Considering that he was working with an article that only had one paragraph written for it so far, he contributed an addition of more than 100% of the original amount. All of his sources are up-to-date, from reliable sources, and show a diverse amount of information from books to websites to academia literature. There was no bias, and I sensed no persuasion when reading this article. And the only advice I would offer would just to expand the article more, but as previously stated this peer already doubled the original amount of context. So from what I could see they've done more than enough.