User:EliseSembach/Dixie Overland Highway/Avaw13 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)
 * EliseSembach
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:EliseSembach/Dixie Overland Highway

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?
 * Somewhat - you can definitely tell the article will focus on history of the highway and how it came to be.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the lead is factual and a great overview of what the article will go into more depth on.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, history of the evolution of the highway is extremely relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, the article is very in depth analysis - I don't think there is anything missing.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, extremely factual and neutral information.
 * 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 persuasion - all factual claims.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the sources seem very reliable and unbiased to me.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, they seem up to date
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, all of the sections are clear and make sense - nice flow of information.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I saw.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the sections are very relevant to the evolution of the highway and easy 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?
 * Yes, image of the man who developed the original highway.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No caption necessary - picture is of the guy being written about.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, to my understanding.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, image correlates nicely with the section.

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?
 * Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 9 different sources, very concise research with many alternate articles to back up the info in the new article.
 * 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?
 * Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * I think it does

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the article was improved immensely from the original.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * There is so much new information added, backed by facts and an abundance of reliable sources!
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Perhaps shortening a little? But, overall the content is very strong and flows nicely.

Overall evaluation
Great job!! You made this article WAY better than what it started out as :)