User:Acho98/Bite of Seattle/Eric1997uw 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)
 * Acho98
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Acho98/Bite of Seattle

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has been updated and reflects all the relevant points of the topic.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes the introductory sentence contains the what and the where of the event.
 * 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?
 * No, all lead information is expanded on later.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all information is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, all content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Currently no information under the "Food & Drinks" section.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Content added is neutral and comes from neutral citations.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No areas are high debatable and no content leans towards any side.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No bias.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No persuading content.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, however sources are not yet cited/linked.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Sources look to be reliable and thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Sources all seem to be current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * No links have been inserted at this time.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Content is well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not upon first read.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Content is well organized.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Contains one image of crowd.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Image is well captioned. (Crowds at Bite of Seattle)
 * 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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Content added has improved the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Clear and concise information that is relevant to the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Expand on low content sections and look into any other available images (if there are any).

Overall evaluation
Good job!