User:Briilcrockett/A Sojourn in the City of Amalgamation, in the Year of Our Lord, 19--/Nicolerewis 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

 * Briilcrockett
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Briilcrockett/A Sojourn in the City of Amalgamation, in the Year of Our Lord, 19--

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
I think the lead was extremely well done. It gets to the point without giving too many details. The guiding questions say that the lead should include bits of information from each section of the article, so I'd try to add in some information on the religious aspect as well as the historical context. As for everything else, it seems great. You can clearly understand the point of the article, and it flows well into the rest of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
Everything in the article seems to be relevant. There could maybe be more information added to the Religious Themes passage of the article, but other than that, everything seems to be in place.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
I'm not really sure how this would be biased towards anything in particular. There are points made in order to show the historical and religious contexts of the text, but there aren't any serious arguments being made. In other words, they aren't straight up saying that the author is racist and horrible for even coming up with an idea like this and that's good to know.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Pretty much everything is given a reliable source of information. Some of the sources are a little bit older than they could be, but it's not that big of a deal in my opinion. I did notice one thing that I was kind of unsure about. " For Jefferson and Holgate both, these ideas of racial superiority are often tied to the Great Chain of Being, and both feared that interracial unions would, in Jefferson’s words, 'produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other races.'" While you can cite where Jefferson believed this, I'm not sure you should really say that Holgate believed in this as well unless you can prove it. I see that Jefferson's State of Virginia was cited, but unless you can prove where Holgate believed that, I'd stick to Jefferson unfortunately. As for the sources themselves, they seem pretty scholarly & the links work fairly well!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Everything is nice and clear to read & understand. The one thing I noticed was the summary. I can understand why the first chapter would be explained outside of the rest of the story, but I wouldn't go into so much detail per chapter. That's a lot of information for a Wikipedia article. I do appreciate that everything was cited, but going into so much detail seems a little unnecessary in my opinion. Pretty much everything is flowing nicely, no obvious changes in the author.

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


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

Images and media evaluation
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?

New Article Evaluation
They did a great job of linking to other Wikipedia articles! I hovered over each of the links to make sure they were showing the correct information & all of them worked very well. I'd go into some of those articles (where applicable) and add in a link to your article when its published! :) I think we all have to work on the actual structure of the article, but everything is in its place as far as text and headings. I'm only seeing 4 sources at the end, so I'd maybe look into more scholarly sources to make your article seem more relevant & show the research I know you've done :)

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
As every group doing this project, I think there is definitely room for improvement. That being said, nothing is inherently bad about the article. As I mentioned previously, I'd work on the summary & add in some more information to the lead that is relevant to the later sections of the article. The researched information done in this article is fantastic & paints a clear picture of where & when this was written. The information on the story itself is great as well. I'd consider adding more information to the Religion section, and checking the way you're referring to people's opinions like the Jefferson/Holgate comment. Great job!