User:Jakobfree1/Mystic massacre/Kdotlamar39 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? Jakobfree1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jakobfree1/Mystic massacre

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it has been updated and reflects new content added by my peer. It looks like it is still a work in progress, but so far includes relevant information.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The Lead does have an introduction that succinctly explains the topic at hand. It presents the most salient information that the viewer would be searching for upon coming to this article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It briefly mentions almost all of the article's major sections. It does not touch upon the aftermath, as no numbers are provided for the amount of casualties during the massacre.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The Lead does not include information that isn't mentioned later in the article. Everything is explained in further detail in subsequent article sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is not overly detailed, it is concise.

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? The Lead could include the number of deaths at the massacre instead of waiting several sections to include that pertinent information.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the tone of the added content is neutral and seeks to provide the facts instead of picking a side.
 * 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, it is only providing a historical account of the massacre so the reader is more informed.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, everything is backed up to reliable sources of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they do.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, dates are from the last few years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links work fine.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No noticeable grammar/spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is broken down into several major sections that clearly outline the purpose and content of the article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is one image that was included that depicts the movements taken during the massacre.
 * Are images well-captioned? The image is well-captioned and easy to understand.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? It adheres to the regulations and appears to be properly cited.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, it is presented in a visually appearing way.

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? The article is more complete. Background is paramount for historical events, and the content helps to give the historical context for what occurred. Additionally, the aftermath explanation gives more insight into the lasting ramifications as well.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The information presented is accessible and easy to understand. It isn't hard to make sense of what happened during the massacre as the information is given concisely.
 * How can the content added be improved? The Lead section could include how many people died at the Mystic massacre so that people have a sense of how catastrophic the massacre was before they start reading the article itself.