User:Abihello6/Seattle Underground/Njpierce16 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Abihello6


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Abihello6/Seattle Underground


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Seattle Underground

Evaluate the drafted changes
Nice job keeping an encyclopedic tone, and good use of multiple notable sources in one paragraph like Kaylea said. Hopefully there is enough information in these sources to make significant contributions. The current Tour History seems like a good place to start as most tourists may be interested in that kind of thing more than other potential topics. You'll wanna make sure it's distinctive enough from the History section, and you might consider replacing the word history to set them apart.

Specifics:

Lead

- The lead hasn't been updated yet to reflect the changes

- The introductory sentence is fine

- The lead needs to be fleshed out a little more to give a broader overview of the topic, obviously this will happen naturally as you expand the content

- All info is relevant

Content

- The content added is relevant

- The content does contain figures from 2022 regarding admission price, two of the new sources are somewhat out of date but since the section is historical then I assume all the necessary info is as up to date as it needs to be. But it might be worth including information on how the tours have evolved up to now

- There is definitely a need for more content sections. You may already be doing this but you should check similar articles in the WikiProjects or the templates to see what types of things to add

- You did address the equity gap by referencing the indigenous inclusivity, maybe you could explore that further

Tone and Balance

- Your tone seems good to me

- I didn't notice bias or informal tone

Sources and References

- All the content is cited, although the stuff in the original article is cited strangely, might be worth looking at. All the in text stuff is front loaded at the beginning so its impossible to know what's what. That's not your fault but you might attempt to fix it

-The sources are as thorough as they need to be, and offer plenty of insight

- The sources aren't super current so it might be a good idea to find one more that offers insight into the current state of Underground tours.

- I believe the Beneath the Streets website mentions inclusivity in their description

Organization

- The content is concise and does a good job condensing and conveying the large amount of information contained in the sources.

- I think I noticed one or two grammatical errors and tried to correct them

- The organization is fine for now, although maybe the Tour History is more of a subsection of History than a dedicated section. That's up to you

Images and Media

- The images are all relevant and enhance the concept visually

- The captions are good

- Looks like they're all CC or public domain

Overall Impressions

- The article is more complete, but I think there's stuff to add

- The content does a good job staying neutral and is well sourced

- It's questionable whether this makes sense as a Section or Subsection of History. Either way, more sections relevant to the topic are necessary, possibly a section about Seattle Underground in pop culture, or a discussion of the economic impact it's had for Seattle to maintain/profit.