User:Dwang74/Canusa Street/Cheerio2 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Dwang74 (David)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Dwang74/sandbox/Canusa Street
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Canusa Street

Evaluate the drafted changes
To start off, it is evident that you've made many substantial changes to your wikipedia article. When comparing it to the current version of the article, it is clear that your additions have made the topic more relevant and comprehensible.

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, there have been additions to the Lead that provide more detailed facts about Canusa Street (such as precise measurements to portray the significant length of the road).
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead does include an added introductory sentence that clearly states what the article is talking about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There is not exactly a thesis to outline what the article will be covering in its subsequent sections, however, for this particular topic, I don't believe it is necessary to describe the article's major sections in the Lead section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead consists of many general facts about the article, all of which are relevant. It doesn't mention any major topics that aren't later covered.
 * Is the Lead concise or overly detailed?
 * The Lead is very concise as it includes brief and broad facts about the article topic.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the addition of the "Origin of Name" section to describe where the name of Canusa Street was derived and the addition of the significance of the street were both relevant to the topic. The significance section was a major addition to the article because it answered the question of why people should know/care about this street.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Based on the article topic, content seems to be up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or does not belong?
 * I noticed that you made a note about adding information about how the residents that live near or along this street are affected by the politics that the street embodies. I think that would be a great aspect of the topic to add because residents view/experience the street much differently than those who do not live near Canusa Street.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I think your "Residents" section of the article topic would be a great way to consider equity gaps, if it applies.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content is neutral. There are no biases or clear sway towards one direction or another.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there are not exactly claims made in the article draft. The edits are essentially straight facts about Canusa Street. I don't feel like I am being convinced to do or believe in something.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented?
 * Due to the nature of the article topic, I don't believe there are viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented. The content is very neutral.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader if favor of one position or away from another?
 * Although Canusa Street is portrayed to cause some challenges for residents living on its border, I don't think it is trying to persuade the reader in favor of one position or the other. The article simply states the conditions in which individuals must experience if living nearby the street.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * It seems like most content is baked up by a reliable secondary source of information. The only source I am unsure about is your [3] reference.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say?
 * Yes, the content accurately reflects what the cited sources say, effectively paraphrasing the content.
 * Are the sources thorough? Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There doesn't seem to be much coverage on this topic, thus, the sources do reflect the available literature on the topic. I was wondering if there were any academic journals or sources that may have discussed this topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * The earliest source used seems to be published in 2004, which is not very recent. However, given the topic, I don't think this source is detrimental to the accuracy of the article.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?
 * I noticed that you used a few news coverage websites (or magazine-like articles) as resources. However, there doesn't seem to be many peer-reviewed articles. I'm not sure how much coverage there is about this topic in academic journals, but I think it would improve the validity of your additions if there were some of these sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links seem to work.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written?
 * The content added is well-written. The points are straightforward and there are no fillers, which makes the article very concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * It doesn't seem like there are any grammatical or spelling errors in the content added.
 * Is the content added well-organized?
 * The restructure of the article is much more coherent and organized than the current article's organization. The article sections are clear and content matches the section it is under.

Overall Impressions

 * Has the content added improve the overall quality of the article?
 * I believe that the content added has improved the overall quality of the article. The additions are relevant and insightful and makes the article look more "full" and complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I think one strength of the content added is the reorganization of current and new content. Dividing up the content into more sections makes it easier to read and understand what information is to be expected in each section. In addition, the "Significance" section provided insight into the importance of this topic, which I thought was an essential section to have.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I'm sure you've already planned to do this, but adding a "Residents" section to explain the impact of this street on the lives of individuals would be beneficial to article improvement. In addition, I'm not sure in what form this would come in, but possibly choose one other section to add that goes beyond the surface of what the street is and its impacts. For instance, what does it represent? Why should people care about it? Are there any debates about the state of the street or what it brings to the Canada-USA society?