User:Eric.mehnert/Armoured warfare/Graceluloff 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? (provide username) Eric.mehnert
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Eric.mehnert/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, content contribution is sizable.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, specific and addresses historical context.
• 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? Yes
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

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? This is a topic where a historian could go on for ten years at least. There is a vast wealth of research. The author has made a sizable contribution, however there can be other examples added.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes, there is a part where the author says "most notably" and "superior" this is fine but has a tinge of opinion.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, Very Factual.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Balanced.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Maybe in the sense of how one technology was superior to the other but this could actually just be a factual statement that it was more effective in the mission or efficient.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the author could provide more sources.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
• Are the sources current? Some could be more current in terms of last update on websites but most are current.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes and very professional.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Very few to none.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, broken into paragraphs, could have subsections maybe but it is well done.

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?

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 i think this provides a pretty important example of the topic and is a worthy contribution
• What are the strengths of the content added? It is detailed and sizable as well as historically relevant in terms of what readers would want to see when looking at this particular page
• How can the content added be improved? Addition of more current sources (secondary) and added caution in word choice as to not voice any opinion.

Overall evaluation

Very good start and contribution. I think this is a very relevant and good thing to add to this particular page and there is alot you can do with it. Keep researching!