User:Jhnola/Neighborhoods in New Orleans/Ashleyposaz 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? (Jhnola)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Neighborhoods in New Orleans

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the leads provides a clear reflection of the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, there is a lead that explains the neighborhoods and how they are divided.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, but it gives an overall description of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it gives a general description of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise and to the point.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? I do not know but the current information is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? No, not all of them are up to date an I came across a link that didn't work.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think they could have sectioned it differently but it is still very organized.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, I did not see ant topics related to Wiki's equity gaps but certain parts do have a brief history description.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content already in the article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the article is neutral on the topic.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, there are no overrepresented or underrepresented view points in the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content is neutral and informative.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I cannot see the new content but based off of the information already on there it is all from reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, it is very informative.
 * Are the sources current? No, a lot of them are not current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, they have links to its economy and culture.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Not all work but many do.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, very clear and easy to read through.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not come across any grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is broken down into topics for each section 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? No, there are no images.
 * Are images well-captioned? No, there aren't any images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? no images are posted
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing 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? Yes, it does adhere to the requirements.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes, there is a diverse division of sources on the topic.
 * 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, it follows the necessary info boxes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, it does link to other articles to learn more.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I can only comment on what is there and the article is very informative with a great organization.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is very structured and clear.
 * How can the content added be improved? It can be improved by including more relevant sources.