User:QueerComics123/Theo van den Boogaard/Rileeeee ;D 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)
  • QueerComics123
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:QueerComics123/Theo van den Boogaard

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?
  • Author could have highlighted his early and personal life more in the introduction
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Yes
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is very concise and well done

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

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
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Biography has not yet been added yet
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Sources have not been added yet
• Are the sources current?
  • Sources have not been added yet
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Sources have not been added yet

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
  • There are little errors
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes - very 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?
  • Yes
• Are images well-captioned?
  • There is no caption on the picture
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes

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?
  • Sources have not yet been posted
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
  • Sources have not yet been posted
• 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

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • Yes the article is more complete and has much more quality information
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The career section has extensive information spanning over 50 years and has an extensive list of works.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • There could be more information on personal life and a bibliography needs to be added

Overall evaluation

I think that once the sources are added, the Wikipedia will be very strong, and a lot of research has been done to learn more about this person.