User:15blades/The Nantucket Culture/Kimlek 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) User:15blades
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:15blades/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Somewhat
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's overly detailed

==== Lead evaluation: Overall the lead is good but it's too overly detailed. I also found it kind of confusing what you meant by the "Nantucket people". When you refer to the "Nantucket people" do you just mean the people that resides in Nantucket or are you talking about a specific group of people in Nantucket? ====

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? Yes

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? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, although there was only one clickable link

==== Sources and references evaluation: I can see that you listed the sources you're going to be using but so far I see you using only one source ( the one by Nancy Shoemaker) in your article. I would you recommend you to incorporate more sources into your article. ====

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Somewhat
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

==== Organization evaluation: There are many grammatical and spelling errors especially in the Business/Industry and Whaling section. Other than that the writing is easy to read and the content is well-organized. I like the different subsections you added. ====

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? Yes
 * 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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Mostly
 * 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? Mostly

Overall impressions
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? The content provided more information on the nantucket culture.
 * How can the content added be improved? You should make it more diverse, so far I can only see you talking a lot about whaling.

==== Overall evaluation: Overall, you have a good article but there's a lot of room to improve on. You should add more content and remove redundant and repetitve informations. You're honestly doing a better job than me. Good luck on finishing the rest of your article. ====