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

• Whose work are you reviewing? Omt2e
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Omt2e/People in the Room

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? It does not say much regarding the themes or background sections.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, regarding the award the book won.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Overall good, I would maybe work on making the sentence structure a little smoother.

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? Maybe a section for see also including the author, the painting, and other relevant wikis

Good, love the amount of referencing you have.

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

Great job with neutral writing.

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 are relevant and appropriate.

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There are some unclear sentences in each section.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, there are some grammatical errors, namely in the Themes section. The third sentence is a fragment.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

No major grammar errors, just needs some editing.

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? yes
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The photo is from wikimedia commons, but it states that there might be copyright claims against wikimedia for the image.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, I like the image on the left side.

Good, I hope that wikimedia doesn't get claimed for it.

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
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes, there are many different sources.
• 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

Looks professional.

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
• What are the strengths of the content added? Makes the article look like some that are already published.
• How can the content added be improved? Just some editing.

Great job boys keep honing it in.