User:ElnF94/Kap-Kig-Iwan Provincial Park/Cynthia Kenth 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? (ElnF94)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Kap-Kig-Iwan Provincial Park

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? No, as the article is very short.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is very concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? No, I would add more recent references. I visited the provincial park's website and they have some good information including an updated map.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * 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 over represented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favour 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? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it's concise but the overall article is too short. There could have been more details added about the park; activities, facilities, camping, etc.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes but there could be a tad more space between the two so they're not so squished together.

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? Yes.
 * 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? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? My understanding is that the person wrote the piece so there was nothing they or I added to the piece to enhance it.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Introduces audience to information about a lesser known park in Ontario.
 * How can the content added be improved? Increase length of article.

Overall evaluation
I enjoyed reviewing the article and learning about a new provincial park. I couldn't see any Wikipedia rules, pillars or violations within the write-up, only that the article could have been longer in length. ElnF94 did a great job!