User:KevDuguay/Suburb/Ghodsonuo 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? KevDuguay
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:KevDuguay/Suburb

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No. It would be relatively easy to add in that suburbs often feature shopping centers/malls.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Absolutely.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? For the most part. There are certain sections that are not covered immediately, but I think that's fine in this case.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is good, and with a simple revision to accommodate Kevin's new content, it would be great.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, definitely,
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, I don't think there is any reason to consider the information out of date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, although I think the new content could be expanded upon (especially the part about their function as a social space - other sources about that would be really interesting).

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? Perhaps only the view that shopping centers were a total positive; I'd imagine there are texts out there that would attack shopping centers for harming small businesses, or that socialization in shopping centers is somehow detrimental. That's really a stretch, though. I think it's fine.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes - but only the one right now.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, but it would be better supported by multiple sources.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? It is currently not a link. The ISBN is 0-375-40750-2, and adding that to your citation should also create the OCLC number automatically, which helps makes the information more reachable.

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? There are some grammar errors with the commas, but there are no other errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The section is short enough to not need to be broken down. I think the second and third sentence would be good swapped, with a little editing to improve the flow.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (he did not)


 * 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?

For New Articles Only
'''If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. (it is not)'''


 *  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? Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? They help flesh out part of suburban living that really wasn't considered in the article previously.
 * How can the content added be improved? I would love to see more, and from more sources!