User:Maggiehoang/London fog (beverage)/Savula98 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? (Maggiehoang)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Maggiehoang/London fog (beverage)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * It's concise and to the point, does well to reflect content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, describes what London Fog is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, describes the ingredients and origin.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise, does a good job.

Lead evaluation
The lead is very similar to the original article. Could talk about how it was popularized.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, ingredients, history, production, etc. I like the topics you added. Maybe expand more on history.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, very informational.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * 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, is very informative and neutral.

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, they are current and up to date.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Very concise or clear, and neutral. I like that you reworded "health effects" to "health benefits" because it was confusing in the first article and sounded negative.
 * 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, sections are well organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, could use more though. Maybe ingredients or history pictures.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * "A london fog" isn't a very descriptive caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, but could use more.

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.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * There is a lot, but some are necessary.
 * 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.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes, could use more though.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I think there is still more to add about the history and how to make it. Maybe talk about different variations and how they differ.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Neutral tone and focuses on information.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Answered above.

Overall evaluation
I think this article does a great job of being informative and gives facts relevant to the topic. There could be more information overall and more content, but this is a great draft.