User:Martamae/Lehi Roller Mills/Tayat1 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? Martamae
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User: Martamae/Sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it clearly describes what the topic is.
 * 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, I would say that it briefly describes the major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think it's simple, clear, and concise.

Lead evaluation
I think it's very good. At first I felt like it was too short, but with a re-read I realized that there isn't too much more to say about it. However, if you are able to add a few more lines or another sentence of information, then I would. You covered fried chicken as a subheading, but nothing was mentioned about that in your lead.

Content
Guiding questions


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes


 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, so far it's a good mix of older and newer sources.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Nope
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, I don't think there is much written about this building, or this city. Those who built it were of a marginalized population.

Content evaluation
I believe that you are on the right track with your content. Maybe just add some more information and detail about it all. Right now it's pretty short.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, it is very informative and factual sounding.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Nope
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Nope
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
It has a very neutral and even tone! Keep it up!

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? Most are, some are pretty old.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes and Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they all worked for me.

Sources and references evaluation
It might be good to have some more sources, but the ones you had looked good!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Nope
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes-I thought it was very well organized.

Organization evaluation
Your organization is very clear and concise.

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-I thought they were great.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Images and media evaluation
I think they were perfect. You probably could add another one, especially for the fried chicken section.

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? It's not super long...definitely could add some more.
 * 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

New Article Evaluation
So far everything looks good. It just needs some more words and detail to make it a more valuable and helpful article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? They describe what it is, and provide the information necessary to one researching about Lehi Roller Mills.
 * How can the content added be improved? Add more information

Overall evaluation
You're on the right track. My only advice is to just add some more information and detail. Great work!