User:Lyang82/Lavinia dock/Omurphy5 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) Lyang82
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Lavinia Dock

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes there is new content added, but It seems to not enough new information for the reader.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the topic was clear and I was able to understand what I was about to read.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes the lead includes many different topics that was going to be included in the text.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes there is information that I read that I did not see in the original reading.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think in parts of the text some could say it could be over detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes the content is more information missed the original reading
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes from what is on the internet it is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't think anything is missing. There is some information that is not needed.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? No the information was added by other sources.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there are no claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No the content added for the most part was all factual information.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes everything is cited
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes the sources are reliable, and the sources match the topic
 * Are the sources current? The sources range from different times
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes I they do work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes the reading Is well organized and titled
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I checked it over and I did not see any missed spelled.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes each section has a title and well information to back it up

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? NO
 * Are images well-captioned? NO
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NO
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NO

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 the article is well sourced and those sources are reliable. It also meet Wikipedias requirements
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes all of the sources have something related to the reading.
 * 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? From reading the article I found that how it is organized was very similar. The format in the structure were similar in ways.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes there are links to other articles to get a better understanding on that topic.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes I believe that the information added would help the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I believe the strengths of the article Is the format of it, there are topics labeled that help the reader.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think a better way to improve the article would be more detail the intro. There could be more general information about Dock.