User:Mylar mylar/Johanna Hurme/JonKim44 Peer Review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

• Mylar mylar
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Johanna Hurme

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes, the spelling edits and style of language has been revised
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • The Lead does begin with an introductory sentence followed by a brief overview of the main topic.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The Lead touches upon the major section following the Lead.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No, everything mention was later expanded upon.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The Lead is brief and concise.

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 the content surrounds the journey of Johanna Hurme, not just a collection of random works

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • The author does not offer any bias.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • There is a well-balanced ratio of attention applied to each project.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No, the content does not sway the viewer to an opinion .

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • The language of writing is high-level, perhaps a bit too sophisticated.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • Yes, however I marked these areas as points to fix and has been revised.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes the structure is very easy to follow.

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Yes, the visual aid assists in providing imagery to the narrative.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • Yes
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes

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?
  • Yes, the article has a high number of reliable sources.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
  • The list is a bit too much, however I believe the high number is attributed to cross referencing.
• 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, the article falls within a familiar style of Wikipedia.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
  • Yes

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • Yes, the article contains a versatile outlook on Johanna Hurme's architectural journey.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The structure is simple and easy to follow.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • The language style can be less sophisticated/complicated