User:Mattmgc/Gun laws in Virginia/AutumnFore 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) Mattmgc
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Mattmgc/Virginia Gun Control

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead gives an efficient, chronological summary of the history.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Not necessarily; It begins with the earliest history.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes; the lead gives important information to be expanded upon below in the timeline.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? So far the lead is the main source of information.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise and easy to read.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? All content is relevant and refers to specific events.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The information ends as of 2019 which is very recent.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Demonstrated in the lead, the content is chronological, but there is a gap in the middle; one second it is the 1600's, and the next it is 2019.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? One of my favorite things about Matt's work is that it is very neutral; focusing on events, they do not emphasize various points in order to make an argument.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No; more information is needed to really tell.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? This question is difficult because Matt focuses on the chronological order of events without going into detail about the reasoning behind the calls for legislative action. Perhaps including these would be helpful to provide context, but all sides should be equally detailed here.
 * 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 is variety here; there is an in depth scholarly source and two news sources. It would be beneficial perhaps to balance the news sources with more scholarly sources that expand on the topic.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The scholarly article is thorough. Adding more thorough sources like this would strengthen the work.
 * Are the sources current? Two sources are news sources reporting recent news, so yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Content is clear and very concise; to be honest some detail would help to support the concise claims/facts.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The last sentence could be revised to add a verb: "The period of the National Firearms Act's passage in 1934, many additional state gun laws were passed" could be changed to "During the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, additional state gun laws were passed," assuming this is what is being said.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I like the history/chronological focus that keeps things in order.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media- No images yet


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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? During this time the article would benefit from at least one more scholarly source.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I am assuming there is more literature on the time period 1700-2000.
 * 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? No section headings yet, but this would pair nicely with the outline.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No, but this would be beneficial both to the reader as well as the writer who still might be looking for points of emphasis throughout the history of Virginia gun laws.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article provides a concise summary and is new.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is neutral and nicely organized.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content could be better supported by more detail, completing the timeline, and at least one more scholarly source.