User:Anonymouse3042/Hester Lane/HollyLovesHistory 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? Anonymouse3042
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Anonymouse3042/Hester Lane

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?
 * N/A
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the Lead is very concise and informative!

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?
 * N/A
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes.

Content evaluation
The content added so far is relevant to the topic, and the article addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is neutral, and does not reflect any particular viewpoint. In addition, the content is not persuasive toward any select position.

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?
 * So far, yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes. One of the sources, Vanguard, was published in 2020. The other source is from 2014.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links work.

Sources and references evaluation
Both sources are relevant and written by a diverse spectrum of authors. Each piece of information is backed up by a reliable source, and the sources are accessible via links. The citation for Vanguard leads to an ISBN search, so while the reader cannot access the full book, they can still search for the book at a bookseller or the library.

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?
 * Nope!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * So far, the content is organized.

Organization evaluation
The content is very well-written, and does not contain any grammatical or spelling errors.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * N/A
 * 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?
 * Yes!
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * So far, the list of sources is great.
 * 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?
 * N/A

New Article Evaluation
The Hester Lane article is off to a great start! The article meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements, and it is supported by 2 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject.

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?
 * The Lead is very strong.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * N/A

Overall evaluation
So far, great work! I'm super excited to learn more about Hester Lane through your project!