User:Maryland florida/Imperial Train of Russia/DvDel Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)maryland florida


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maryland%20florida/Imperial_Train_of_Russia?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Royal train

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead of the article contains no information on any of the countries trains, so there is no need to update it.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? ^
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? ^
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? ^
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? ^

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes all content added is relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, sources are 2016-2022
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All crucial info seems to be present
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the author mantains a neutral tone throughout
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? none apparent
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There could be more employment of articles and books rather than websites
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There could be more employment of articles and books rather than websites
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? To the extent necessary
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Try exploring UMs library site
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None discernible
 * 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, the exterior of the train already has an image on the article, and this displays the interior, adding to the readers understanding of the train
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, it is described properly
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes it completes the informaito non the russian imperial train
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Concise, informational
 * How can the content added be improved? Lack of diverse sources