User:Adamsd2016/United States Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command/Jonathan Reissi 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) - Adamsd2016, Mfreedberg2016, and SlayerWill
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: United States Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - Yes, the lead is updated and includes updated information that is relevant to their topic.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - Yes, the introductory sentence clearly states what the rest of the article will be about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - It does mention certain capabilities that are discussed later in the article but it does not specifically mention the headings throughout the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - No, all information in the lead is also present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - The lead is concise with the right amount of information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes, the content gives specific information regarding the unit, the capabilities, and structure.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, all the content is up-to-date and relevant.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - There is not any random information that does not belong.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes, the content presented are all facts and does not seem to be biased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No, all the information has been cited and it stated as fact with no evidence of any bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - No, the article goes in depth about every aspect of the special operations unit.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?- No, the article presents all the information as fact and allows the reader to determine their opinions from them.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Yes, the information is cited and referenced.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - Yes, the sources are well versed on the topic and are reliable.
 * Are the sources current? - Yes, the sources are up-to-date.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - Yes, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes, the content flows very well and is well-written. It is also clear and concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - There are no grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, there are multiple headings with new and different information about the unit.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - Yes, there are multiple images that give the readers a better understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned? - Yes, the images are captioned so the readers understand what they are.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? - Yes, they adhere to the copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? - Yes, they are spread out throughout the article next to information that relates to them.

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, there are multiple sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? - Yes, the sources are not all the same or similar.
 * 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, there are multiple links throughout the article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The article is very well written and truly has lots of great information regarding MARSOC and the unit's lineage, inception, training, capabilities, and organization. There are multiple headings that each have specific information about the unit. There are multiple reliable sources that are all well-versed in their knowledge of the unit that the article draws from and cites. Overall, this article is very reliable, all the information is clear, concise, and helpful.