User:GrDVillarreal/Neopaganism in the United States/Robinfreiberg 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

 * I am reviewing Graham's article. User: GrDVillarreal
 * User:GrDVillarreal/Neopaganism in the United States

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Peer's Answer: Graham didn't seem to add a lead. I would maybe just clearly show which section of the article you are editing by adding a title. I had trouble finding the original quotes within the wiki article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Peer's Answer: What Graham has edited is not the intro to the subject, so the lead does not quite introduce the topic very well.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Peer's Answer: Graham's lead will probably be the same lead within the article already, he is just expanding upon the information.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Peer's Answer: Nothing he wrote about caught me off guard. It is all on topic.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Peer's Answer: Since I could't find which lead he is writing under, I do not know the answer.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Peer's Answer: The content is quite relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Peer's Answer: The content is also up-to-date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Peer's Answer: Everything seems to belong. Graham only added a few more citations and details so I'm sure he could expand even more to make it better if he wants to.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Peer's Answer: Neutral as can be!
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Peer's Answer: Nothing is heavily biased
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? Peer's Answer: Graham discusses a lot about how Celtic re constructionists differ from druidry, but he could probably add more history on the origination.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Peer's Answer: There is nothing he tries to persuade.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Peer's Answer: Graham expanded a lot on sources and they all seem to be reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Peer's Answer: The sources have good literature on the topic. The only source that seems a little shady is the lasvegas.com source.
 * Are the sources current? Peer's Answer: Sources are current, especially since what Graham is discussing is from so long ago.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Peer's Answer: The links added to websites work. Most sources came from books. If they were found on databases, you could link to the database to find the book.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Peer's Answer: Indeed
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Peer's Answer: No errors I could find.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Peer's Answer: Well organized, again, he could expand a little more.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Peer's Answer: Yes, I like the prison chart.
 * Are images well-captioned? Peer's Answer: Images are connected to links.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Peer's Answer: Only one image is used and I believe it is connected to another wiki article where it is properly cited
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Peer's Answer: connected to link, so yes?

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? Peer's Answer: Shore is!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Peer's Answer: I think Graham wrote very intelligently and concise. He expanded upon where the article had issues and includes better information than the previous quotes, including citations as well.
 * How can the content added be improved? Peer's Answer: The only thing I can think of is finding a bit more to edit. You only expanded upon two things. I'm not sure if more information is required into this project though. Maybe include an extra paragraph on more history?

Overall evaluation
I really like how you organized everything. It made it easy to edit. I would definitely add a lead so I know which section of the article you are writing under. You seem to understand the project well and did a professional job.