User:Briilcrockett/A Sojourn in the City of Amalgamation, in the Year of Our Lord, 19--/Sfarmer33 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? 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, I think the Lead is off to a good start.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It does. I may look at the formatting of the year (the one in parentheses?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, it doesn't cover the historical context or religious themes (it touches on social relevance).
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, but it is not completely filled out.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, the summary hasn't been finished.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?I think the most influenced portion when reading is actually the Lead.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? It seems like religious and cultural themes may be subcategories of one overall theme section?
 * 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. Some claims aren't, but it seems like they partner with the following sentence that is cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes; but are all of the Bolokitten sources supposed to be done separately?
 * 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? It is easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a few times I noticed punctuation outside the quotation marks on quotes.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is. Are there any more sections that could be added? Could you add a short section for 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?-

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? I'm not sure about all of the available literature but it does cover a good amount.
 * 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; it doesn't have any media yet though. Is there any available?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

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?