User:Emsla/History of the Jews in the Southern United States/Emadeux 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)
 * Emsla & Cmchan99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * History of the Jews in the Southern United States

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, although it is a pretty vague and general statement.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * It is only 1 sentence long, but it is concise and clear!
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does not. It is only a general statement about how Jews have lived in the Southern United States.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It is such a general statement that it doesn't really present anything new.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is very concise, probably not enough detail.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. It talks about the first Jewish person in the United States; this is a great place to start.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * I would say it is up to date. Although, the author could add more content to the page. There is not very much on there.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There could be a lot more content. There seems to only be the one paragraph about the history of Jews in the South.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes. It talks about Jewish people, a minority group in the United States.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, it is based off of fact and has a neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are none.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The article needs to be longer to capture more and different viewpoints.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor 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. There are only two sources used, but they are both good sources. One is an online newspaper article and the other is from an independent non-profit focused on the history of Texas.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * They are very thorough and they provide reliable sources of their own as references.
 * Are the sources current?
 * As far as I can tell these sources are current. One was written in 2016 and the other does not list a date.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The newspaper article is written by a journalist who is focusing on historically marginalized Jewish people in the South. The other article is written by an independent historian.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * They work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is concise and easy to read, but there is not a lot of information there.
 * 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?
 * There is only one section in this article, but as far as this section goes it is well organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No images.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No images.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?