User:Amyxlam/Booker Site/LizziMcEligot 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) Amyxlam
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Booker Site

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes! it was interesting and informative of the sites history.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it outlines the topics well.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes! It does this very well.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, some information could be expanded on more in the body of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

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? no.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, it is purely informative.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, they are informative only.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not really.
 * 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? Yes!
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes, nice work, I didn't add like to my article and I will do that in my next edit!

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? None that I can see.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, but some topics could be expanded upon and have heir own section.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no
 * Are images well-captioned? n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

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? - The article could have some more work done to it, but the ideas are there and all of the information is present.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The information really gives me a good understanding of the backstory of the site.
 * How can the content added be improved? It can be improved by adding more paragraphs and maybe adding a few images if there are any relevant ones.

Overall evaluation
Overall I thought this was a great article! I thought the intro was spot on, I think a few sentences could be consolidated to make the whole thing shorter and then leave more of the explaining in the body paragraphs. I think your information on the site was good and you made it really clear who the excavators of the site were.