User:Jgiglio7/Cohasset, Massachusetts/Tatiwaxman Peer Review

General info
Jgiglio7
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Cohasset, Massachusetts
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

{| class="wikitable"
 * Peer review

Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, my peer has added corrections and dates to the lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes, there is a sentence introducing the topic of the article, which is about Cohasset, Massachusetts.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, this could be very helpful for the article and very effective!
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, there is good information in the lead
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead should have a bit more overview and less detailed information/data about Massachusetts.

Content[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes! information is corrected and important information about specific was added
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, dates are fixed and updated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Not as much. Mostly just information about a town, but is effective!

Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, extremely neutral and not convincing the reader to visit the town
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, all is neutral. Good job keeping it neutral and informative:)

Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Add some sources that back up the new dates added and other information!
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Need some new sources before answering ;)
 * 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.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * add some new sources to back up new dates added, but the sources there are now are good!

Organization[edit]
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?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes, the pictures now definitely set the tone. a few more could be added
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes there are good explanations under each picture but could add more pictures
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes!
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * spread out more throughout the article!

Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:

~
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * yes! definitely effective in the beggining of the article because the dates and other information was corrected
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * some more sources could be added to back up the dates changed!
 * }