User:JenniferMGA/The Telegraph (Macon)/Ereed23 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? JenniferMGA
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: The Telegraph (Macon)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, Jennifer has updated the lead section to reflect each of the changes she has made to the article.
 * 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? Yes, the lead discusses the newspaper being the third-largest in the state, but this is not discussed anywhere else in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and does a good job at highlighting the main takeaways from the body text.

Lead evaluation
The lead is well-written and concise. The edits Jennifer made to the lead helped address some of the components of the article that were previously missing.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all of the content added thus far has been relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? In reading other articles about regional newspapers, they tend to include information about the newspaper's website and notable contributors, neither of which are currently presented in this article at this time.

Content evaluation
I realize that the majority of the content that is currently in this article was contributed by other Wikipedia users. My recommendations for improving the content would be to find citations for as much of what is currently there as possible. I think it would also help to group the content into smaller sub-categories. For example, there is a lot of information that lives under the "Beginning in the 1800s" section. As it is currently written, it is a list of facts rather than a narrative about that era of the newspaper's history.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, all of the content Jennifer has added thus far has been neutral, supported by sources that are cited alongside her contributions.
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
There are a couple sentences in the article that point towards unique research, or form of bias. One such sentence is towards the end where the user stated, "This foreshadowed a larger merger, as in 1983, the two papers' daily editions merged." I would be careful with these types of assumptions as they're not necessarily supported by facts.

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? No, the content added by previous users needs some attention as the majority of it is not supported by any sources.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the sources Jennifer has added to the article are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Overall, the article lacks the support of reliable secondary sources, which would cause users to question its validity.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not find error in any of the content Jennifer has added thus far, however there are a few instances where grammar can be improved in the contributions others have made to the article.
 * 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 larger categories that make sense, but I think its organization needs to be further refined as previously discussed.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the article currently contains one image of the newspaper. I think it could be further enhanced by adding a photo of the exterior of the newspaper's headquarters or a photo of the newsroom if either are available through the appropriate licenses needed.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? In Wikipedia's Image Use Policy it states, "Some tabloid newspapers and magazines have had legal issues with respect of original copyright for sake of getting their stories out, and images from such sources may be problematic to use on Wikipedia for both legal and moral reasons." I would suggest checking with one of our Wikipedia experts to ensure this image is in compliance with the copyright expectations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, the only image currently on the page is in the infobox.

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? I think the addition of the table detailing the evolution of the newspaper greatly enhanced the lead section of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? With each of the additions Jennifer has made thus far, they have either focused on adding validity to information that another use has provided, or in an attempt to clarify information to make it easier for the reader to understand.
 * How can the content added be improved? As suggested above, I do think the article is missing relevant information that would lead to a better understanding of its functions outside of management, including information about the newspaper's website and contributors.

Overall evaluation
Overall, I think Jennifer has done a good job making her initial edits and contributions to this article. I will be interested to see how she continues to develop the information over the next couple weeks as we head into the end of the semester.