User:Theturtleprincess/Lionel Tiger/Nvega004 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? Theturtleprincess
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Theturtleprincess/Lionel Tiger

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead is clear and gives a brief description of Lionel Tiger.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead provides an overview of Lionel Tiger but there are different sections that clearly identify the section content.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Lead evaluation:
'The lead is clear and concise, my only note for the lead is to explain what a "Charles Darwin Professor of Anthropology". What makes that such a distinct honor?'

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added gives information on Tiger's background, work, and criticism of his work.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content includes a list of books and recent works for Lionel Tiger.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It does not seem that anything is missing or that the article has any unrelated content.

Content evaluation:
It was informative and did not project opinion, well done!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article does a good job of providing Tiger's work and criticism of his work but does not show bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No - it simply provided information.

Tone and balance evaluation:
The content is un-biased and informative, gives balanced information about his work and the criticism he has received.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the list of references are reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Somewhat current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation :
Sufficient sources and references were well done.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Organization evaluation:
The organization was straight-forward and easy to follow.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? This article was not added but enhanced.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Six sources, all accurate.
 * 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.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Definitely more complete and improved, she has done a very good job.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? There is more clarity, detail, and informative content on the this article now.
 * How can the content added be improved? There is just a few clarifications that I suggest.

Overall evaluation:
Very well done and informative!