User:Lukegtasker/1869 Minnesota State Convention of Colored Citizens/Astrodynamic 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? Lukegtasker
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lukegtasker/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Nice and concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No appears complete as a draft

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, neutrally worded
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, simply provide information about event.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? very much so.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? As far as I can tell y
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All links functioned

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes, easy to read and follow the flow.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I caught.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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


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

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? 3 sources total yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Could be more if there are any available as there were just 3. Could be hard to find
 * 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 fits along with other articles of this style.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes it does

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Improved, by structuring information
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Simplicity, and flow of information.
 * How can the content added be improved? Continue adding relevant information.

Overall evaluation
Adheres to grading rubric and assignment details.