User:Sarahgolfet/Alexander Skidan/Langfordchaz168 Peer Review

General info

 * Peer review for Sarahgolfet's article on Alexsandr Skidan.
 * User:Sarahgolfet/sandbox (could not find the article in the main section designated for Alexander Skidan)

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 does have an introductory sentence that defines that the article is about Skidan, and provides an introduction. However, the lead could be more developed in order to better introduce and outline what the reader will be learning about. The lead does not include a description of all sections. While the second paragraph is highlighted in the lead, the third paragraph is not particularly touched upon. For example, the fact that you mentioned awards, the organization Chto Detat', and his current position at the New literary observer, were not presented in the lead. Perhaps a good idea would be to introduce them in the lead and elaborate upon them in further paragraphs. One way you could put in information about the award winning aspect is that you could replace the "well known" with "award winning." The lead appears to be too concise in general, more could be added to strengthen the introduction to the overall 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
The content presented in the article is all very much valid and relevant. More could be added to provide a more in depth article on Skidan, but the information you have provided is valid. Perhaps you could add specifics on some of Skidan's more popular works in order to further understand the poetry that he created. You could create subheadings from the second paragraph that would highlight these works. I have no particular way of finding out if the article is up to date as no references are provided in the article. This should be addressed ASAP.

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
Overall the content is very objective and appears to not need any changes with regards to tone and balance. There is no attempt at persuasion to a particular viewpoint as no subjective points are used. This aspect of the article is well done.

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
No sources are provided at the current state of the sandbox article which is of major concern. All of the information is not backed up by any sources, and could be considered plagiarism. It also, as seen in the above sections, is challenging to verify if the information is up to date or even correct information. Again, this needs to be changed ASAP because even though it is in your sandbox, it still should be cited as we learned in the training modules. I would fix this section first as your article needs to have sources and you need to credit them for their work.

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
While the content is fairly well written, I did notice some grammatical errors, as well as a typo. I would address this fairly quickly because it could potentially reduce the credibility of your article. Given a quick review you could definitely improve the grammar and make it easier to read. As for organization, it would be helpful if you could add in headings and sub headings so readers could quickly navigate your article. This will be specifically more important when you start to add more information and finding particular information will become more difficult. It will also make the article appear more organized and neat when you add headings. As you write more I would think about categorizing your information and putting it into respective headings.

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 at this point but I believe we will be adding in images later in the drafting process.

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
As discussed before, no sources are provided which would violate the notability requirements. It would be useful to add links to other articles that could help provide background information to your article and enhance the understanding of your article. In time it would also be useful to link the article to other articles in order to make it discoverable.

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
Your article has a strong objective nature to it which is quite helpful for conveying information without bias. As for what you could improve on, most importantly add a bibliography to make your article more valid and to avoid getting in trouble with plagiarism. Secondly, I would proofread your article more in order to make it easier to read. Adding more content to your article would be very good for making your article more comprehensive and to make it more of a complete article. With this increase in information it would be recommended to add headings and subheadings in order to organize the information in a logical manner. On a side note, you should move your work to the user page titled Skidan to make it easier to find for your peers. It was challenging to find your article as it was created in the general sandbox and not the one for your article. I think you are definitely on the right track, you are a very competent writer, but I feel that your article could be improved.