User:Amartinez25/Dabbs Site/NJFB44 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? Amartinez25
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Amartinez25/sandbox

Lead
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? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Cannot tell yet
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? A bit too detailed

Lead evaluation:
A good start to the page, the info is good but I would recommend changing the "Dabbs Site" at the top into header format, as well as the sub-sections, to make the section separations clear and easy to find

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? content missing

Content evaluation
Good outline but like before make sure to separate them with header format. Would recommend adding a "Site Significance" section near/at the end

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? NA
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? NA
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? NA
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
too soon to tell

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not yet
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No sources posted yet
 * Are the sources current? NA
 * Check a few links. Do they work? no links yet

Sources and references evaluation
No sources displayed yet

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * "to two other sites called the Etowah Indian Mounds and above the Etowah River." can be rewritten as "to the Etowah Indian Mounds and above the Etowah River"
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Organization evaluation
Outline seems good and the order in which the sub-sections are in is good.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? NA
 * Are images well-captioned? NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA

Images and media evaluation
No media yet

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? not yet
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? no sources yet
 * 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? not yet
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? not yet

New Article Evaluation
lead is good but could flow better by making sentences slightly longer

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?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
general info is given which is how the article should start, so far so good