User:Martamae/Lehi Roller Mills/Malharbican 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) Martamae
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Martamae/Lehi Roller Mills

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it does! Is short, simple, and to the point.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, It includes brief information on the two major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise

Lead evaluation
Its honesty well done for the subject. A short concise lead is a great introduction for readers wondering if the information they need is further in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yup! Includes information as relevant as 2013 and present.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
I was actually enjoying the small bits of information included about Lehi Roller Mills and surprised at how much history a small, family-run mill could contain. Well done!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, looks great! All fact-based information as far as I could see.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * None
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Great work! As long as any further information that's added stays with this same style, you guys will have no problem!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all information is linked to well-cited sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Also yes, I see sources from the news, papers, and articles to name a few; as well as pictures.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most current I see is from 2018, awesome!
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Aren't many links, it may help to add a few

Sources and references evaluation
Your sources look great! And it looks as though each source as multiple places where information is contributed, which is fantastic

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, had no problem reading it and the information flowed well.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I spotted.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, clear sections with relevant information

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes? It is nice to know what the mill looks like!
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yup
 * 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?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * No links to other articles yet

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
This was a great article! Very intriguing choice to write a new article on, and I appreciate the details put into the article so far! Keep it up!