User:StevenStudebaker/User:StevenStudebaker/sandbox/Annan sun 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? StevenStudebaker
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: link

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 is very concise and well written. It has a clear introductory sentence and is a basic overview as to who Nick Dyer-Witheford is. It is very short, but its shortness doesn't detract from it at all. The lead summarizes pretty much everything that the rest of the article could cover. It may be worth revisiting it once the rest of the article is done to see if there is anything else to add, but at the moment, it works well.

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 so far is relevant and up to date, however there is likely a lot more that could be added to the content section, particularly if this author has other works. All of the content in the article so far is necessary and adds new and valuable information, there just needs to be more of it.

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
The article is written from a completely neutral tone of voice. It is not persuasive, and each statement that the article makes is backed up by a source.

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
All content is backed up by reliable sources. The sources are both books written by the author, I may suggest looking outside of self-authored books for more information of Dyer-Whiteford, as they do pose a sort of conflict of interest. However, they are current and the links work, and for the information written so far, they represent accurate information.

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
So far everything is well written without grammatical or spelling errors. There are no section headings as of yet, but those will come with the addition of more information.

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
No images.

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
It is a good start to a new article. The list of sources is not particularly exhaustive, but that will come with time. The article reads like any other Wikipedia article, things like section headings and infoboxes are definitely things to add before the final draft to make it more of a "standard article". There are no links yet, but you could likely add one in on his college or if his books have their own pages.

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
This is a really good start. The lead is well written and strong and concise. A lot of the other critiques (no section headings, infoboxes etc.) will come with just adding more and more information over the course of the semester. The sources so far are good, just find a few more that aren't self-authored and you'll be set there. Definitely look into adding pictures (if they are relevant) and links into new and existing information. Everything that is here so far is good, there just needs to be more.