User:SBryan29/Tom Feelings/ParkerHeustess 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? SBryan29
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SBryan29/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it does
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is mostly concise, though is somewhat wordy and could probably be cut down a little bit.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the sources are all current
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do not see any gaps, and the content does all seem to belong.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, it is all presented in neutral language.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, I do not see any biases.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, there does not appear to be any viewpoint represented one way or another.
 * 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, the sources are all reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they do.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, they are
 * Check a few links. Do they work? I checked 20 links and all of them worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is clear and easy to read.  The user updated many grammatical errors and made it more readable.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, they improved it.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is significantly more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added is relevant and accurate, and fixes a number of errors.  It also removes unsupported statements that were not cited.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content could be improved by a few simple grammar checks to make sure of accuracy, and perhaps cutting down the lead a little to make it less verbose.