User:Jaf020/Lumber River/Mph105 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? Jaf020/Lumber River and Laicax/Lumber River
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Lumber River

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * concise

Lead evaluation
The Lead is concise, however I would add some additional references just to back up your information. Include the purpose of the Lumber River.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * not really
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * not sure

Content evaluation
Overall the content that you guys added is good. I would add some more details about why those endemic species are important to the Lumber River and why those species like to call Lumber River home... explain each species overall importance and describe each species' physiology. Explain importance of endemic species. Add some of the information to the lead as well so all bases are covered within the lead.

Also within the history section.... one thing you can add is the importance of the Lumber River to the Lumbee people of Robeson County, as well as the purpose it serves to them.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * no
 * 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
 * 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?
 * possibly
 * 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?
 * The content written is concise and easy to read. I would recommend adding additional details to your wildlife section... mentioned these details above. Also you could include some additional details further up within some of the other sections... mentioned above.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * not really
 * 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?
 * did improve the quality, but more details could be added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * identifying endemic species
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * mentioned above

Overall evaluation
I really enjoyed reading your additional section within this article. Identifying the importance of wildlife within these areas is essential. My only recommendation is adding more details about those species itself. Right now your information does seem a little vague, so add details and support it with sources. Overall good work.