User:JWi1son/African Burial Ground National Monument/Tranquillitatis317 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) JWi1son
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: African Burial Ground National Monument

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I don't believe changes have been published yet.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I think the first sentence is okay, but is short and just states the location and that it is a monument.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It doesn't, it seems the lead is not dependent on the sections/thier info.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It doesn't seem to, no.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think it is a little overly detailed, maybe a shorter just sentence on each section and then details are in the sections themselves.

Lead evaluation:
A couple just font/grammatical things: Why is "Negroes Burial Ground" in bold in the lead? Is it because it is the name of a section? Also, why is cemetery in quotations @ end of paragraph 1: (... earliest known African-American "cemetery")? They both seem like they don't need to be bolded/quotation-ed to me, but I don't know the reasoning. Like, it definitely was a cemetery, not a "cemetery" you know?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? I think the content she is going to add is absolutely relevant, I'm surprised the EIS and info about what was slated to be built when they found the cemetery hadn't been added yet.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, I believe so.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think some parts are a bit long winded, but there is a lot of history that goes into the site and its formation.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes it does both.

Content evaluation
Content is good, in some parts dense, but I think the addition of the EIS and the company/planned build fills a gap and the bit about the Historic Preservation Act & asessing is also a great add. *grammar stuff: In the site studies section, the bulleted list, are the quotes because the entire section is a quote? I know one of the trainings said to use lists as little as possible, maybe consider just using that quote as a sentence or wording it differently maybe if you want to keep the bullet list.

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 I don't believe so.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think the parts on the protests and community are a very important part of the article and offer good representation.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I don't believe so, no.

Tone and balance evaluation
I think the tone and balance in this article is good. Neutral, and not bias towards any one side of the site.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all seems to be cited properly
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, especially since this was a relatively recent discovery and event, the sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes I believe so.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they do.

Sources and references evaluation
Sources and refs look good. JWi1son has added at least 4 good sources at the moment as well.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Some parts are a bit wordy/confusing and could use a simpler rewrite, example from construction/dedication section : "The Door of Return, refers to "The Door of No Return", a name given to slave ports set up for involvement with the age-old local institution of slavery on the coast of West Africa, from which so many people were transported after sale by their native chiefs, never to see their homeland again."
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There were a couple I mentioned above... quotes around cemetery, the use of bold font, and the bulleted list.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, I think so.

Organization evaluation
I think the organization is good, but maybe parts of the 'Site Studies' should come before the protests and effects of protests portion... I think some of the content in site studies could help to understand the reasons for protests that come during/after the discoveries and excavations.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? At this point, JWi1son hasn't added images but the images currently on the article are good to enhance.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, I believe they are.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
The images are helpful to understanding the content of the article.

For New Articles Only
'''If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. *n/a'''


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? *n/a
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? *n/a
 * 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? *n/a
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? *n/a

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, it has improved the quality and the article is more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The info added was where there were gaps in details and they are well supported by references. They are neutral and well written.
 * How can the content added be improved? By checking in on some grammar/rewording some sentences and maybe eliminating quotes the content could be even better.

Overall evaluation
The additions JWi1son has made added to the article, filling in detail gaps and keeping focused on neutral and well supported information. I really liked what you added about the preservation act and the EIS done, as well as that they were told it was unlikely to turn up any remains. I think that filled in a major part of the story that was missing previously. Moving forward, I would consider rewording any lengthy or confusing sentences, I would see if long quotations can be eliminated for info in your own words, and I would take a look at some of the font/grammar stuff I mentioned above. It may very well be as it's supposed to be, but they stood out to me. I also think the references you found and added are good additions to the article.

Section by section : lead: A couple just font/grammatical things: Why is "Negroes Burial Ground" in bold in the lead? Is it because it is the name of a section? Also, why is cemetery in quotations @ end of paragraph 1: (... earliest known African-American "cemetery")? They both seem like they don't need to be bolded/quotation-ed to me, but I don't know the reasoning. Like, it definitely was a cemetery, not a "cemetery" you know? content: Content is good, in some parts dense, but I think the addition of the EIS and the company/planned build fills a gap and the bit about the Historic Preservation Act & asessing is also a great add. *grammar stuff: In the site studies section, the bulleted list, are the quotes because the entire section is a quote? I know one of the trainings said to use lists as little as possible, maybe consider just using that quote as a sentence or wording it differently maybe if you want to keep the bullet list. tone: I think the tone and balance in this article is good. Neutral, and not bias towards any one side of the site. sources and refs: Sources and refs look good. JWi1son has added at least 4 good sources at the moment as well. organization: I think the organization is good, but maybe parts of the 'Site Studies' should come before the protests and effects of protests portion... I think some of the content in site studies could help to understand the reasons for protests that come during/after the discoveries and excavations.