User:Vdeba001/Pura Vida Bracelets/Caroruguita 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? Vdeba001
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Pura Vida Bracelets

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * 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 article only has 1 section so yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It can be a bit more concise. Some of the information in the lead is repeated almost verbatim in the other section of the article.

Lead evaluation
Good but could use a little work

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Maybe some information can be added as to what type of bracelets they are or how they're made. Maybe the former can be shown with the addition of images?

Content evaluation
Very good

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, it's purely factual
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * 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, the reader isn't persuaded to do anything

Tone and balance evaluation
Excellent

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
Excellent

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? The section "about" can be broken up further into how the company was started and then a different section on the factors that influenced its growth to the company it is today.

Organization evaluation
Very good

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, there are no images present
 * Are images well-captioned? No images present
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images present
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no images present

Images and media evaluation
Include pictures

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? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? User added a lot of citations which work in strengthening the validity of the article
 * How can the content added be improved? About section can be broken up and images can be added

Overall evaluation
Good