User:Bquinn428/New London, Virginia/WJenos 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? Bquinn428
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Bquinn428/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has not yet been updated to include the information, but will only require minimal change.
 * 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 it includes the major sections, and dependent upon where the new sections go it should change to include that.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is 5 paragraphs but it gives a very good overview of the topics in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. Addressing the cemeteries in New London is necessary because those buried there are integral to the history of New London.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Due to the local nature of the history, the articles are complete and most likely do not need a ton of new information.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes. The only article that may have some bias is the News and Advance article because of its recency and the fact that it is a newspaper.
 * 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? The new articles are simply a summation of what the cemeteries are about and do not lean toward bias, good or bad.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The sources drawn on for these additions to the article may be questioned because of the newspaper article, and the link to another Wikipedia page where information was drawn. The information from Clio is most likely good.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? For the cemeteries, there is not much literature describing them, and I would think that this would be an accurate sample but i feel that it could use more backing up.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content as a whole is well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? It needs commas to offset "descendants, including..." and "Callaway, as well as."
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images added.
 * 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? Yes. The addition of the cemeteries helps create a more complete picture of New London and it historical qualities. The addition of the cemetery section may also help loved ones and researchers in their searches for family/historic figures.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added is neutral, which is important especially because of Liberty's affiliation with New London. The prose of the article is also appealing and won't leave anyone confused.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content just needs more information. I understand that there is a lack of information that can be used on Wikipedia, and any further additions should take that into consideration.