User:SHAE2019/Fancy dance/SamuelFireCatcher 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) SHAE2019
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SHAE2019/Fancy dance

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?

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes the content added is relevant to the topic.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Content seems up to date. Cannot be verified with a source given though.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't believe that there is content missing or content that doesn't belong.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Content added feels neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No heavy bias on any particular position.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? None that I am aware of.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Information added was informative and not persuasive.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No source was given.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No source was given.
• Are the sources current? No source was given.
• Check a few links. Do they work? No source was given.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Content is easy to read and flows nicely.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No errors were found.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Content was 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? No images have been added.
• 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? The article is more complete after the added content is put in.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the content added are the depth that it provides and the better understanding of the article. The content added is very detailed and pertains strongly with the rest of the article.
• How can the content added be improved? The content added can be improved by adding the sources the information came from. Other then that no real weaknesses were found.

Overall evaluation

I feel as though the added content will provide good information for the Fancy Dance article. It is not off topic from the article and adds additional context for it. Good quality addition for the article.