User:Vickyyvyvy/Chang Dai-chien/Ckthayer 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? Vivkyyvyvy
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Chang Dai-chien

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, it has not been updated yet.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the article has a clear and concise introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is a brief description to the article's major sections. More is needed on length of career, influence, forgeries, and notable works.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the article mentions that the artist is often regarded as "the most gifted forger" but not by who in the art community.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise but more information could be added such as most famous work.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant to the topic. The content seems a bit brief and would be expanded upon.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? More up to date content is needed. There are only three sources listed and the most recent is 2006.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There are some missing fragments that could be added (sections that have only one sentence). More information is needed on the artistic career such as beginnings, most famous work, and end of career. There is a good part of the biography missing, there is very little about life and death. More sources need to be added and overall information about the subject, forgeries, and art are needed.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content does not have a neutral tone. It is very biased in language listing the subject as "the best" forager.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The lead appears very biased towards an opinion (see above).
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The article is missing quite a bit of information so everything seems underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content does try to persuade the reader of the skills of forager in the lead.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No new content.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are a lot more sources on the topic that need to be added since 2006. The sources listed are not thorough and only provide a glimpse at the life and career.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are not current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links on the page work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is easy to read. Unbiased opinions need to be removed.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No grammar or spelling errors in present content.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The sections are broken down fairly well. Could be broken down further into life, education, early career, notable works, etc.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Two images of the subject enhances understanding.
 * Are images well-captioned? One image is captioned, the other is not.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The first image does not give credit.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The images are kind of continuous and not appealing.

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?