User:Wisdom&KnowledgeSeeker/The Rhodes Colossus/Bruno7123 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

 * (Arianasainz72 N.gagan Seanseabolt Wisdom&KnowledgeSeeker Z.Weisshaar)
 * User:Wisdom&KnowledgeSeeker/The Rhodes Colossus

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 article has been updated, to become more objective.The Lead clearly describes the articles topic. It does not describe the article's major sections. The lead does not present information not present in the article. It could be cleaned up a bit, as it seems a bit cluttered.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content added does remain relevant to the topic. The content added is quite up to date. It is missing the Reception and Legacy sections. The article does not appear to deal with any equity gap. It does however address topics related to historically underrepresented topics.

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 content added is neutral. No claims appear heavily biased.The viewpoints seem fairly balanced.The information does not appear to sway the reader towards any position.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The new information is backed up by reliable sources. The resources are though-rough and current. They however do not appear to be diverse, but do to the available information, it is understandable. The links 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?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content added is well-written, and does not have spelling or grammatical errors. It is fairly well organized.

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
The article does contain images that enhance the understanding of the topic. The captions could use some work, the original ones seemed a bit better. The images do adhere to Wikipedia's regulations. The images could be laid out a bit more spread apart.

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
The content added did improve the content of the article, but with the content that it took away, it doesn't feel that much more complete. The strengths are that it did add more context and does further my understanding of the topic. It could be improved by expanding in the new sections presented, and rewording the captions and lead.