User:Jirvineak/Coalville, Utah/CStickel8 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? (provide username): Jirvineak
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Coalville, Utah

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, it didn't need to be. The content added was an expansion to an already existing section; therefore, the lead didn't need to be updated.
 * 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? Not really ... but this is one of those rare exceptions where it probably doesn't need to. For example, historical and demographical information doesn't need to be in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes - it talks about interstate 80 (which is only referenced in a "see also" section as a Wikilink) and Echo Reservoir, which is never talked about again.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise.

Lead evaluation
I think this lead is good. It actually serves as a good starting point for further research to add to this article; maybe information about Interstate 80 and Echo Reservoir could be found and added to the geography and economy sections, although I can see now that perhaps it isn't because the editors aren't sure where to put the information. Is a Reservoir more a part of the landscape or the economy, since it's man-made? Is an Interstate part of the economy at all? I think you could get away with putting that information in wherever makes the most sense to you. Anyway, the lead is concise, applicable, and informational.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Absolutely!
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation
I say no to the last question, but really, the demographics section could definitely be condensed. I don't see why 4 paragraphs on demographics is necessary for a small community. But the history content you added is most definitely relevant! Expanding that section made the article look a whole lot better.

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 - just "demographics" has too much information, but that's not a point of view
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
Completely neutral! The education section references the use of a Native American name as a mascot, but gives no political message, just the information.

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? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The Summit County Historical Society pages appear to be reliable. They wouldn't be on wp:rsnb because they appear to be a small society; it's reflective of the small town itself, so it's very appropriate. They just need to be organized so that there's a citation at the end of each paragraph at least. It's okay to put them at the end of sentences and even in the middle, but every paragraph should end in one. And some sections that other people have done - like geography and education - have no sources. That's something to be worked on.

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? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
I appreciate that you took the time to copyedit the article and remove grammatical errors; I found none. I also appreciate that you reorganized the history section chronologically - that's a huge improvement.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
You didn't add any images, which is okay, since there are already maps, pictures, and visuals all over the place.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Chronological order is a nice touch. See below -->
 * How can the content added be improved? I think just adding sources to those last two paragraphs.

Overall evaluation
This was a great contribution. I like that you kept on going even after somebody reversed one of your edits. We don't want to go back and re-do it again cause that can get us in "edit wars," but you didn't do that. You can always ask them via their sandbox why they did what they did. I like that you added in your information and made it blend with what was already there; it doesn't seem out of place at all. Just a tip: on your edit summaries, any time you just corrected something like grammar or spelling, you can just write "ce." That stands for "copyediting." You don't have to write out exactly what you did. Anyone who's curious will be able to go in and see exactly what it was; if they want an explanation why, they'll ask you.