User:Lilabroden3/Indian Hill Memorial Park/Mdivestea Peer Review

General info
Lilabroden3 & MatthewLathew
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Lilabroden3/Indian Hill Memorial Park
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * N/A

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.)

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Yes, it looks like this is a new article.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

No, the first sentence does not clearly represent the topic.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No, it does not include a description of the major sections.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No, the details in the lead are elaborated on later in the article.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is concise.

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, all of the content is relevant.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, the content appears to be up-to-date.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

There is no image of the marker they reference which takes up a significant space as text.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

I am not sure.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes, except for the opening line.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, it seems neutral.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No, these viewpoints are just a reflection of reported history.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, it does not attempt to sway the reader and one way.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, however they lean heavily on one source.


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

Yes, it reports information from the sources.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

The sources are not very thorough as seven of the ten sources are linked to the same document.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes, they are current.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

I am unsure of the background of the authors.


 * 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 appear to be some other sources that could be helpful.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The links are operational.

Organization

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

It is easy to read.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

I did not see any obvious errors.


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

There are multiple sections, but in addition to subheadings, headings could be useful as well.

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?

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, there are enough soruces.


 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

There are other sources that could be included.


 * 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 a similar pattern.


 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Not currently.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes, it is a good draft.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

It is concise and rooted in historical data.


 * How can the content added be improved?

Including information from more sources and cleaning up the visual organization.

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of "Homemaking"
 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.