User:Themediocrerainbow/Roy De Forest/LPScanlon 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? Themediocrerainbow
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Roy De Forest

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 seem to be updated to reflect new additions, the Contents box includes the title of the new section ("teaching career"). The lead is concise. There is not a brief description of all the major sections, but there is a Contents box. I don't think the lead contains any information not in the main article. It's not overly detailed, it is concise.

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 new content seems relevant to De Forest's teaching career. The content appears to be up-to-date. Some of the links are broken (more about that below). The new content is it's own section, and everything there seems to belong in that section.

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 new content appears is neutral. None of the claims appear to be biased towards any particular position, it is simply a summary of key moments in his teaching career. There are no persuasive elements.

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
Not every claim is backed up with a source, but it's possible that some sources cover a few claims. For example, the first paragraph has one source at the end of the paragraph. I assume this source is meant to cite all of the sentences in that paragraph. However there is no link to that source. It is noted in red with "missing or empty url."

Source titles appear thorough, and the dates indicate that they are reasonably recent. The years are 2016, 2017, one is from 2004, another is 2008 (year not in the citation, but found it when I went to the link)

But I cannot check how thorough or recent as several links are missing or broken. There are 4 sources for the new content, but only one of the three links is working. The fourth source doesn't have a link. It does have an ISBN number, so that the book could be located. I was able to follow links to get to the book in Google Books.

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
The new content is well-written, it is concise, clear and easy to read. No grammar or spelling errors. It's got two sections, these are divided between his early career and mid-late career.

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 is one image. It is well-captioned. It links out to the Honolulu Museum of Art. The copyright information says there is no copyright, and it is a part of the public domain. I'm not sure why this would be the case, as the painting is from 1989-90. The photo also seems to be one taken by a visitor inside the museum - it is not a professional quality image (I don't think). I might suggest digging a little to see if it's really public domain.

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?

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
Yes, I think the new content adds to the article, but for sure the links need to be fixed. The strengths are that it maps out De Forest's teaching career, which is significant. It can be improved by replacing broken/missing links and checking on the image copyright status.