User:Chasenb37/Lake Gonzales/AntrelleClark98 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) User:Chasenb37
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Chasenb37/Lake Gonzales

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not yet? I am not sure.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it includes an introductory sentence explaining where Lake Gonzales is located.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No major article sections yet but so far the lead has a brief description.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, it definitely provides a little more background on what the dam was constructed for and by who, etc.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes the information is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? I believe it is up to date, but no sources provided.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Subheadings missing but author indicated that he would add more for the final.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes and 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? Not applicable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Not applicable.
 * Are the sources current? Not applicable.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Not applicable.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Not applicable.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content added is clear and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No sections. Just one paragraph.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Not applicable.
 * Are images well-captioned? Not applicable.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Not applicable.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not applicable.

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? The content does improve the quality of the overall article and once the author expands on their details, the article will be more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It gives a background on the dam associated with Lake Gonzales and goes more into the history of this lake which is well-explained in the paragraph provided.
 * How can the content added be improved? By adding subheadings and more information in which the author plans to do for the final Lake Gonzales Wikipedia page.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the paragraph provided for the rough draft lets me know that the author is on the right track. I believe the final Wikipedia page will be an excellent addition to Lake Gonzales.