User:Sunflowerroad/Siegrid Alnoy/Willard1996 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? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

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?

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?

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?

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?

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? Spelling errors some verb tenses and
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it is but they tend to be repetitive

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are nice boxes but no images
 * Are images well-captioned? No images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I dont know there arent any
 * 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.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes in class assingment
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? maybe but it seems a little brief
 * 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? yes definetly a real strength of this article is the boxes and visuals
 * 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 the article seems complete and through however it also feels a bit a repetitive
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Lots
 * How can the content added be improved? a photo shoring up some errors and making the read less choppy.

Overall evaluation
Overall this was good with a lot of information. A few things check some dates 1898 seems contradictory to the rest of the paper. Sentences are often short and awkward to the point where they lack a clear cohesive subject. I think without changing the neutrality of the material the article could be written a bit more narratively rather than just like a sequence of facts. As well as the sequential ordering of time does not seem to flow and was a bit confusing to me. Working out some of these kinks is easily doable. Improved grammatical structure would be a benefit as well

Finally thought on improvement a nice photo to put a face to the director would be helpful maybe in the photo box.

Lots of great research done time to lay it out better so that we can see the work that was done.