User:EmeraldJ/Chicago River/Mgcavanaugh25 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)
 * EmeraldJ
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:EmeraldJ/Chicago River

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes? I'm not fully sure of what this is asking.
 * 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 sections, so maybe add different subsections of the topic you are describing/adding to
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Since it is it is not a lead in to different subsections, this is not applicable. I think you lead only has to be a couple sentences so it would be great if you had a little intro!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * It seems like it, the content is more about the history and how it is affecting things today. So, maybe having some of the info you are talking about in the present day Chicago river could use some data figures, numbers, and such with cited sources.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not that I can tell.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not that I can see
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Nope.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * It doesn't seem like it.

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?
 * It seems like it
 * 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?
 * There are some run-on sentences and some longer sentences that are hard to follow. I know in academic writing that is ok, but in this I feel like simple sentences are easier for readers to follow.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Run-on sentences and some comma errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No, there needs to be different subsections.

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?
 * I think so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, maybe make it a little bigger but if you can't I understand!

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I think it enhances the article and gives a history as to why the Chicago River is the way it is.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Very interesting content and provides background info. Emphasizes why this is important.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Edit sentences to make them clearer/shorter, editing into subsections so it is easier for readers to read.