User:Mellnov24/The Gloucester County Conspiracy/Wesrhea 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? Mellnov24
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mellnov24/The Gloucester County Conspiracy

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes there was no article on the Gloucester County Conspiracy before this.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, but the lead has a few opinionated statements without sources.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes I believe so.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It contains one or two statements that are not in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think it is concise, but there might be a couple statements that could be changed or taken out.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes there was no previous article about this topic and it is easy to read and understand.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It has recent sources from 2013 and one from 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The only content that might not belong are some opinionated statements without sources.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? I would say the content is neutral and does not lean toward one side or the other.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not that i can see.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The only view point i can see being overrepresented is " is a vital piece of American history"
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not from what I have read no.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I would say the sources are fine though I was only able to pull up two. One is from a credible book.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I think they do but there could be better sources available.
 * Are the sources current? yes, all but one are after the tear 2000. One looks like its from 1917.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? I found two of the links.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is concise, clear and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not from what I can see.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it is broke down into three sections and is 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? No it does not contain any images.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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, from my understanding of the notability requirements the article meets those and has 2-3 reliable secondary sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? A few of the sources are online articles with one book cited, there are possibly better sources out there.
 * 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 but does not contain an info box.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No it does not.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Being that there was no previous article on this topic I would say its a good starter article that can be improved.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think the strengths would be the basic facts on the topic, This article could easily be linked with other topics.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think the article could be written with more depth with better sources. Images could be added to enhance the article as well.

Overall evaluation
I think this is a good starter article that can be improved later. the author did a good job organizing the article, as well as making he article is easy to read while being clear and concise.