User:Bailey Knotts/Walnut Hill (Lynchburg, Virginia)/Pcburghardt 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) Bailey Knotts
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Bailey Knotts/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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, there is a section on Genealogy listing some information but nothing was said in the lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overly detailed, some of the information could have been put in the section on Architectural and Landscape Significance. 

Lead evaluation
'''The lead is good but needs to be more generally descriptive of the overall article. The description of the makeup of the house could have been placed in another section. It is understood that you didn't place it there originally but since your adding subsections to the article it could be rephrased to be cleaner. A couple of your sentences in the lead could be rewritten to be more concise and less run on.'''

(From Prof. D: the lead is the same as the original article and has not been edited 2/24/2020)

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, followed links and checked source and found that they worked and appeared to have the latest information available. While searching for other references available discovered the material online all used the basic draft for the original Wikipedia article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is a header for Domestic Significance but nothing is in it. Would like to see the information it would give more depth to the overall article. Also the Genealogy section could use more information. This section could be a really big draw to the page due to geneology being very popular.

Content evaluation
'''The content is good but relies more on what was used for the historical marker then other outside sources. your first section has good depth but the remaining sections are really small.'''

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
Very good on keeping things neutral and without bias.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, to a point. If possible try to find more information on the subject and include it into the references, otherwise a disclaimer might be in order. Ones on other sites are i.e.. (All content on this page is primarily from one source). I have seen this on other sites in the past. It tells the reader that the information on the page comes from a single source, and gives the reader notice that they might need to do other research on the subject and not to rely on just this page for information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the one listed reference citation is a copy of the application for the historical marker for Walnut Hill.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, as current as was able to be found
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
'''See above notes please. Sure there is other sources for this subject but the research will be more physical then just a internet search.'''

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? Yes, a few run on sentences and possible rewording to make the information flow more smoothly.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
Good job on the organization of the information.

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? No pictures
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No pictures
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No pictures

Images and media evaluation
'''Other then the picture already on the page there are no other pictures concerning this article. After doing a google search Walnut Hill historic home lynchburg, virginia, I discovered that there wasn't anything to be found. Maybe a search with a few more specific references to this property so as to not confuse this property with Walnut Hill Petersburg, Virginia.'''

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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes it adds and improves the overall quality. To a point it is more complex, could use more information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Gives more depth to who occupied the dwelling.
 * How can the content added be improved? Try to find information on how they lived their lives, about the family as a whole, and whom might be buried in the graveyard.

Overall evaluation
'''Overall a very good job on this article. As stated above the lack of material has a lot to do with your ability to add more to the article. Some suggestions, try thinking outside the box, don't look for the house online, look for things about who lived there. i.e... Typed in " Samuel Moorman (ca. 1771-1835) " from your article and found https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Moorman-116, https://www.geni.com/people/Samuel-Moorman/6000000001985923164 in the first three sited pages. The wikitree page makes reference to a family bible as a source for information that can be used.'''

'''When " Moorman-Leftwich Cemetery" was put in the search bar it pulled up a find-a-grave page for twenty-three people buried in the cemetery. If you click on the link marked "23 added" near the top under memorials you get a listing, with links to each of the people. Scroll down and click on Samuel Moorman and you get this page''' https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/107499724/samuel-moorman

The information here states:

The son of Zachariah Sr and Elizabeth (Terrell) Moorman, Sam married Judith Clark on 2 Mar 1795 in Campbell Co VA. They had ten children who lived to adulthood.

Known Children with Judith (not in any order):

1) John Clark Moorman, m: Catherine Leftwich.

2) Zachariah Moorman, m: Martha Bronw.

3) Rev Samuel Tucker Moorman (1803-1887)

4) Dr Granville Moorman, m: Mary Crawford.

5) Lucy France Moorman (1817-1889), m: Col Joel B Leftwich.

6) Sarah Moorman, m: Henry Alexander.

7) Elizabeth Moorman, m: Mr Hoffman.

'8) William Henry Moorman (d. 1842)'

'Sam is descended from English Quakers who first settled in the Campbell Co VA area in the mid-1700s. He acquired 450 acres on Flat Creek, his first large land purchase, from members of the Goggin family, although most of his land may have originally belonged to the Clark family. His wife Judith's father John and her brother Micajah, lived on adjoining tracts.'

'In 1806 Sam purchased an additional sixty acres from his brother-in-law Micajah and by 1820 had erected $800. in improvements on his now 510 acres.'

Walnut Hill was a general farming operation supporting a mix of animals (cattle, oxen, swine, horses and sheep) and crops, with emphasis on tobacco cultivation: 4,800 pounds of the leaf were harvested in 1835, the year Sam died.

'Sam and Judith had raised ten children to adult hood. His wife outlived him by 33 years, leaving the land to her daughter Lucy and in turn it was owned by Lucy's husband. The land has been in ownership of the Leftwich family since.'

National Register of Historic Places, VDHR file #015-5012

Early Campbell Chronicles, 463, Leftwich, "Walnut Hill"

Campbell County Will Book 7, p. 379.

'''The bottom three lines above are references, two are new which you could use, and has a description of Walnut hill plus information on his life. All, or part, of this information could be added to beef up the article and to give it more credibility then just one reference.'''