276:
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content added is directly relatable to the original article. The writers ease of using text boxes, references, made it clear the edits made were to make the article
252:
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? The article contains, infoboxes, heading and features of similar articles
288:
Overall evaluation - The writer picked an interesting article, added good content, and maintained an impartial point of view. This article will help entrepreneurs paving the way by reading the history of this record company forefather (Capricorn
248:
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The list of sources are incorporate elements relating to the main topic and represents factual events
136:
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content does not influence the reader and gives good information about the record companies history.
71:
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does include a good description and gives an overall picture of what the article in depicts in its entirety.
280:
What are the strengths of the content added? The purpose of the article was easily ascertained in the beginning of the introduction. The writer used good sources to support the article.
245:
requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes, The article has not infringed on any notability policy requirements.
212:
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? I think the author is still working on images. The original does have a picture of the label cover.
68:
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead introductory sentence is concise and understandable.
191:
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is well organized and seems to flow.
283:
How can the content added be improved? The writer might want to add pictures and more information about the artist (mabey more links about Otis
Redding etc.).
185:
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content of the article concise, clear and well written.
77:
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise, and stands on its own. It gives a concise overview of the articles topic.
256:
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? The article links to impressive artists, founders and time periods.
48:
21:
74:
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? To be fair the article goes into more detail after the lead.
65:
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?The lead looks good and reflects the new content clearly.
156:
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Good, gives lots of references that are credible.
130:
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are no claims that appear to be biased.
35:
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
188:
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors
107:
section there is a date section - 1970 that needs more information. However, think the author is still editing.
242:
221:
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images are laid out as of yet as state above.
236:
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
97:
Is the content added relevant to the topic? Content is good and interesting and flows well.
159:
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
17:
103:
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? In the section After
165:
Check a few links. Do they work? I've checked a few links and they work.
133:
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
218:
Do all images adhere to
Knowledge's copyright regulations? No images
162:
Are the sources current? The sources are current and present reliable
127:
Is the content added neutral? The tone of the article seems neutral
100:
Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the content is up-to-date
215:
Are images well-captioned? No image on the sandbox page
8:
44:Whose work are you reviewing? KatieRob27
7:
208:If your peer added images or media
241:Does the article meet Knowledge's
28:
170:Sources and references evaluation
49:User:KatieRob27/Capricorn Records
47:Link to draft you're reviewing:
1:
226:Images and media evaluation
141:Tone and balance evaluation
304:
196:Organization evaluation
261:New Article Evaluation
146:Sources and References
231:For New Articles Only
266:Overall impressions
271:Guiding questions:
206:Guiding questions:
180:Guiding questions:
151:Guiding questions:
122:Guiding questions:
112:Content evaluation
92:Guiding questions:
60:Guiding questions:
22:Capricorn Records
295:
201:Images and Media
117:Tone and Balance
303:
302:
298:
297:
296:
294:
293:
292:
291:
268:
263:
233:
228:
203:
198:
177:
172:
148:
143:
119:
114:
89:
84:
82:Lead evaluation
57:
41:
33:
26:
25:
24:
18:User:KatieRob27
12:
11:
5:
301:
299:
290:
286:
285:
284:
281:
278:
267:
264:
262:
259:
258:
257:
254:
250:
246:
232:
229:
227:
224:
223:
222:
219:
216:
213:
202:
199:
197:
194:
193:
192:
189:
186:
176:
173:
171:
168:
167:
166:
163:
160:
157:
147:
144:
142:
139:
138:
137:
134:
131:
128:
118:
115:
113:
110:
109:
108:
101:
98:
88:
85:
83:
80:
79:
78:
75:
72:
69:
66:
56:
53:
52:
51:
45:
40:
37:
32:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
300:
287:
282:
279:
275:
274:
273:
272:
265:
260:
255:
251:
247:
244:
240:
239:
238:
237:
230:
225:
220:
217:
214:
211:
210:
209:
207:
200:
195:
190:
187:
184:
183:
182:
181:
174:
169:
164:
161:
158:
155:
154:
153:
152:
145:
140:
135:
132:
129:
126:
125:
124:
123:
116:
111:
106:
102:
99:
96:
95:
94:
93:
86:
81:
76:
73:
70:
67:
64:
63:
62:
61:
54:
50:
46:
43:
42:
38:
36:
30:
23:
19:
270:
269:
235:
234:
205:
204:
179:
178:
175:Organization
150:
149:
121:
120:
104:
91:
90:
59:
58:
39:General info
34:
31:Peer review
243:Notability
289:Records).
105:Founding
20: |
277:better.
87:Content
249:well.
16:<
253:etc.
55:Lead
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.