User:Jessica1419/Salt Springs (Syracuse, New York)/Kateconnolly02 Peer Review

General info
Luxiiinyu, Jessica1419
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Jessica1419/Salt Springs (Syracuse, New York)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Salt Springs, Syracuse

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * It clearly described the article's topic but could be more concise.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not really
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead talked about important stuff and explained it really well but it wasn’t really brought up after
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Great lead and information but could be more concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, added to the original article content and beyond
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All content is relevant
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Salt Spring does not really deal with one of Wiki’s equity gaps, and the topics addressed do not relate to historitcally underrepresented populatioons or topics

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, a lot of facts.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, really just inform

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all of the topics have outside sources cited
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources match the content on the article
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some of it it is current, while some is from a while ago
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources are a lot of .gov and .edu so the authors are uknown
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * There definitely could be more primary resources available with authors talking about experiences regarding the topic rather than just official webistes statements
 * 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?
 * yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that i noticed
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, hit important topics

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, they were relevant to topics of the article like bus stop and transportation
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Captions are concise and straight to the point
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
 * yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * I think there could be more types of sources added
 * 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?
 * Yes, more detail than original article
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, a lot more specifics than the original but maybe could keep the map from the original article
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * A lot of good numbers to back data up
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Again, just get content from different types of sources