User:Smithereens.2/Ferdinand Cheval/Hfarris1998 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

 * username: Smithereens.2
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Smithereens.2/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the main section edited by my peer is included in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead's introductory sentence is short and to the point.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the lead is brief and includes information found in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
The lead is short and to the point. More detail could have been added to highlight some of the major sections.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content is relevant and adds great detail.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The information added is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All content flows smoothly and does seem to belong.

Content evaluation
The content added is very relevant to the article's topic, and brings forward a lot of necessary detail.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * There newly added information does not contain any bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The design façade of the Palias Ideal was overrepresented; there is great detail included in this section.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content added does not attempt to persuade readers to favor a specific position.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone was presented well throughout the article. There could have been more balance, specifically in the details of the façade of Ferdinand's building.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all sources are reliable secondary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * All sources do reflect the topic of the article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources could have been more recent, but they were still written within the last 15 years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Some of the links do not work. One source links to the University of Wyoming library which will not be valid for readers that are not students here.

Sources and references evaluation
All content is backed up by reliable secondary sources. The sources are up-to-date for the most part, but some sources to not have links that work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Some content could have been written better, in a more clear manner.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not recognize and spelling errors, but some grammatical fixes could be made, such as commas.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is well-organized and is broken down into sections that reflect major points of the topic.

Organization evaluation
The content is well-written in an organized manner. There are some areas where grammar could be improved, such as comma placement.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media --> My peer did not add any images.


 * 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
My peer did not add any images or media.

For New Articles Only
'''If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. --> My peer did not create this article from scratch.'''


 * 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
My peer did not create a new article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Strengths of the article include detail regarding Palais Ideal and the recognition from Picasso to Ferdinand.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Content could be written more concisely. Also, an addition of images or media could have been added when discussing the façade's design.

Overall evaluation
The added content improved the overall quality of the article. Strengths of the article include detail about Palais Ideal's façade and Picasso's recognition to Ferdinand. Ways to improve the added content include more concise detail and the addition of images or media.