User:Madisonkazlauskas/Randall Kenan/MaxB97 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? (Madisonkazlauskas)
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Madisonkazlauskas/Randall Kenan

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? Yes
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, which I think is a good thing.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Lead evaluation

You're a leader in leading new Leads.

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? Nope.

Content evaluation

Yes.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Nope.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not that I can tell.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation

As neutral as Switzerland.

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

Super source, but I'd seek several secondary sources to spice it up.

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(t that I can tell)
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation

Overall, overtly organized on one's observations.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation

N/A

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? Yes

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes it definitely has so far.
• What are the strengths of the content added? Very Wikipedia-esque
• How can the content added be improved? I'd just buff out the Early Life section, make facts less ambiguous and connect parts better, even if it means subtracting some info.

Overall evaluation

No kidding, keen coverage of Kenan the kid