User:Hannahbeasley17/Paragould High School/Professortitan 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?  Hannahbeasley17
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Hannahbeasley17/Paragould High School

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? It does not give any indication as to what content will follow in the article. It just provides a description of the school and its location, while providing a little history.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it does do this well.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, it does not.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the history of the school is not located anywhere else.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is a little overly detailed, especially concerning the address. I'm not sure that this would be found in other location pages.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? It is currently lacking detail, but what sections are listed do seem to a step in the right direction.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Again, lacking detail but the promise of up to date information, especially concerning athletics is hopeful.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Perhaps giving the school its own history section instead of leaving it in the lead.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, it is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, it seems to be fair so far.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not enough detail to say.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it seems neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The history section does not, but the basketball section does. It's about 50/50 at this point.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I think perhaps a little more could be found.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current.Yes, they are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It isn't really written like a proper article yet. It is merely hinting at what is currently missing from the sub itself.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I picked up on.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think the ones added are a strong start, but there are certainly room for more sections not curriculum focused (i.e. history, school board, community programs, etc).

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, it does not have any images as of yet, though it shouldn't be difficult to get images of the location and the mascot.
 * Are images well-captioned? Again, no images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? See above.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? See above.

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? It's mentioned as being a stub, so I'm assuming its not a new article, although it lacks a significant amount of detail. Right now it does not meet the requirements though. Only one of the two sources comes from a third-party.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Again, not enough sources, but I don't imagine that it will be too difficult to find new ones.
 * 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? It does follow the patterns of similar articles.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? It does not.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It is still lacking a lot of detail, but it has the bones to be a good article depending on how much time is put into it.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Although it is sparse, the intended content does seem to be making an effort to provide more up to date and expansive looks into the school system itself.
 * How can the content added be improved? Provide a history section and bring in some stuff that isn't necessarily just tied to the curriculum and such. Articles like these are typically meant for two kinds of readers: Those who want to learn about the history of the place and those who learn about what is currently going on there (whether it be as a former student or a family looking into a potential place for their kids to attend school). Ideally the article will cater to both.

Overall evaluation
A solid start, but lacking in enough concrete detail to fully evaluate beyond a starter level. Finding sources could be difficult, especially sources that aren't being provided by the school itself. However, with some creative searching and some care, it can be done. See my suggestions above for some potential ideas as to how you can expand upon it even more. Good job thus far!