User:Daviess22/Hilton Head Island/LPaul27 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Daviess22

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Daviess22/Hilton Head Island


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hilton Head Island, South Carolina
 * Hilton Head Island, South Carolina

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead adds new information that was not originally there, which is a good addition for the article. It is clear that the article is going to be talking about Hilton Head Island, but the lead makes it seem like it is only going to be talking about William Hilton, so add parts about what else you will be talking about in the article. Lead is concise, but almost too concise.

Content is relevant to the topic and gives new information that was not already seen in the original article which is good. The original article already has so much information so it is hard to tell what needs to be added since the original is already really strong, but the new added information is relevant and up to date.

The tone of the information is not biased or leaning towards one way which is good. There is no persuading paragraphs or information in the article at all. It is very information based and gets to the point of the new information that is being presented.

Sources and References

There is no sources or references added or cited, so it is hard to give any feedback on this part of the peer editing.

Organization

It is hard to tell when new paragraphs are starting since there is no actual bolded title sections, but once that is fixed it will be easier to see where information is being presented.

Images and Media

No images or media yet.

Overall, the new information presented is good, but I am not sure how much of an impact it is going to make in the original Wiki article since the original article has already been claimed as a "good article", but the new edits do add new information which is good. The added information is really strong in the fact that it does not try to persuade readers at all, it is simply just fact based information being presented which is ideal for a Wiki article. Something that needs to be worked on is adding the references into the article and citing information that you gained from other sources.