User:Fuller2019/Tonic water/412timothy Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Lead
Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

No, but I can see why the original lead was kept! It fits well into what the additions are trying to do.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes! Very clear, well though out, and describes what the location is along with the major aspects of what tonic water is.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes! Also has a contents section highlighting the important parts of the article.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Yes it is concise!

Content
Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, very well thought out as it dives deep into geography, recreation, hiking, fishing, swimming, lodging, incidents and more!

Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes!

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

No there is not.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes! One specific area is relating to fixed eruptions because of the quinine content inside of it. I found this informative and a great addition to the article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

Yes very neutral as it comes from a more perforative perspective.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No not at all.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No they are all overall balanced well.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No not at all. Very informative.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

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?

Very clear and well written! The title headers help a ton too.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No not from what I read.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes!

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes! The new notes improves the article dramatically as it gives more context into what exactly tonic water can be used for and basic other descriptives such as taste.

What are the strengths of the content added?

It adds a lot more context to a relatively dull original article. For instance, it provides more taste adjectives as well as another section on fixed eruptions.

How can the content added be improved?

Potentially adding photos of a fixed eruption and more of the drink would help a ton!