User:Briilcrockett/A Sojourn in the City of Amalgamation, in the Year of Our Lord, 19--/Roshnispatel 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)
 * Briilcrockett, RavenaWolf, Kaitlynmccall, Tayloremerc, Bbelliott1875
 * 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?
 * Yes, its so much more detailed than the published article stub thing (which I'm just treating as if it were a lead)
 * 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?
 * Not really
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Not really, but I think if there's a small section on Holgate using a pen name that would be helpful (if you can find anything on that)
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Its 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?
 * I assume that there are going to be more chapters in the summary
 * Maybe try an infobox?

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?
 * 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

SO...I think Sarah asked about page numbers in class and we didn't have to use them, and a lot of your source list is page numbers--I'd double check on that

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?
 * no
 * 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
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * NA

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 sections that they do have is detailed and feels information hefty, its all easy to understand
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Maybe look into more sections that could possibly apply to your article? Because it looks like if you finish your summary, that summary is going to outweigh the rest of your article