User:Chasenb37/Lake Gonzales/RachKingg 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)
 * 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?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * There are no major sections made, so no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead right now is overly detailed, but once you add sections it should be fine

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Maybe? No references have been added
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No information has been included on recreation in the lake.
 * 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, the article seems pretty neutral so far

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No references!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Nope
 * Are the sources current?
 * No
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * No, none included

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * All of the information included is in one big paragraph, so adding more sections and pictures/graphs would make the sections easier to understand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No that I can find.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No, as stated above adding sections would make the information easier to understand.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No images included
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No images included
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No images included
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No images included