User talk:Lisacalabro92/Rebecca Allen (artist)/Rheana98 Peer Review

Rheana Galloway December 5, 2019 Peer editing

General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Lisacalabro92

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Allen_(artist)

Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes there is a lead.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, includes brief description of person being researched.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation: The lead is present short yet descriptive describing what the researcher will be discussing.

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? No

Content evaluation: Content is up to date and in chronological order.

Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No points were over or under represented.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, just mostly to inform readers.

Tone and balance evaluation: Tone and balance was good. Informative research that doesn’t persuade readers in either a positive or negative direction.

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? Yes

Sources and references evaluation: page is cited properly including in text citations a sources and references page.

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? Haven’t noticed any

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Page is separated into parts by topics and sections.

Organization evaluation: page is organized and separated into sections. Each section matches the main topics.

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? List is a good length

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? Yes

Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

New Article Evaluation: Follows the guidelines of Wikipedia. Overall impressions Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes content is improved. More can be added if necessary.

What are the strengths of the content added? Well organized page. Easy to read.

How can the content added be improved? Adding more information where it can be added.

Overall evaluation: Page is organized, cited well, understandable,and follows the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rheana98 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)