User:Roygbiv99/Robert Triptow/Indica1234 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? Roygbiv99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Roygbiv99/Robert Triptow

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The Lead should be updated to reflect the information added about Robert Triptow's role in Strip AIDS USA
 * 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; could be fleshed out a little more, but encapsulates who Robert Triptow is as a gay cartoonist (what article discusses)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Very concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes; added additional information about Strip AIDS USA in addition to other publications Triptow has been involved with
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Add more photos (peer said that they will add class photo)

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The Strip AIDS USA content still needs to be rephrased/summarized, but the article as a whole presents non-biased, factual information.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The only viewpoint not represented is that of Triptow's critics, but that might not be especially relevant to the article (or even possible to find through research). Overall, I'd say no real issues here.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Only two sources have been added so far--a secondary scholarly source and the artist's website. So far, two good sources.
 * Are the sources current? Yes; most recent source is from 2016.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All links added by my peer work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Still needs to be summarized/rewritten, but other small additions in content are concise and clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A few typos, but those will likely be changed with my peer's planned revisions.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes; broken down into clear and informative sections.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (N/A: yet to add 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. (N/A: not a new article)'''


 * 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--added important information on Strip AIDS USA which is necessary to understand Triptow's work and relevance.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? This content comes from a reliable secondary scholarly source.
 * How can the content added be improved? It should be revised so that it reads well and is more concise.