User:CJMcKenna98/Alfred the Great/Stewartjordan625 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? CJMcKenna98
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: CJMcKenna98/Alfred the great

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, my peer is adding a section to the article.
 * 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?
 * 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
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No content is missing and all of the content does belong in their edit.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

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

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?
 * Are the sources current? The book was made in 1900, the YouTube video was made in 2019 by the British Broadcasting Company, and the "House of Benedict Monks" source was published in 1903.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes the authors are diverse and historically marginalized people are not needed.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All of the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is concise and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are not many spelling errors but a few sentences need to be grammatically fixed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is well organized and flows.

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?
 * 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 it is more complete with this information because it is in-depth about Alfred the Great's death. The original article mentions the death but does not go in-depth about it.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content flows and expands on information that the original article does not have.
 * How can the content added be improved? Review some of the sentences because the grammar may be incorrect or it does not flow with the rest of the content. In the last paragraph, you claim the convicts to be "rude" and I think that word should be removed from the content because it is an opinionated word. Even though the convicts may be wrong, that word should not be in the paragraph.

Overall evaluation
Overall, this potential addition to the article would be good. The original article does not go in-depth about the many trips that Alfred the Great's remains went through. This information would be interesting for a reader that did not know that much about him. A quick review over some grammar and word choices will give the content justice. One potential improvement is to see if you can find add images of where Alfred's remains are currently or where they have been moved from. The visualization of the buildings and land can help the reader truly understand what the land looks like.