User:Mkan18/Ypres Salient/Arodriguez860 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)
 * Mkan18
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Ypres Salient

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No. Right now there is only a brief location description and what the site was used for.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No. It is only composed of one sentence.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, it should be modified to slightly outline what the article will cover.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is too concise. More detail should be included.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, content seems relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, content seems current.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * This doesn't feel finished. Maybe spend a little less time going over the districts dimensions and depth.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, I didn't detect any bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * 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?
 * I see that there are some footnotes and a few sources. Make sure to add this when you have begun to add more.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The list of sources seems pretty thorough. I would say do some research on the sources that are listed right now to see if they are reliable.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some of the sources that are listed look to be pretty old. One of them is from 1925. I would say fact-check those points.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

==== Sources and references evaluation: As of right now 7/10. I think you can definitely do further research on the sources that were listed there before you were able to edit. This will help your article be the most accurate. ====

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes well-written. I think you can make it more concise, though. the two sections seem pretty dense and you can spend more time talking about other things. Also, the section about the district is a little bit hard to read, I think it's all the numbers.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I didn't detect any grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Like I said before, some sections are too dense. I think you can add more concise section that talk about more important things.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are two images but I wouldn't say they enhance my understanding. The first image is a bit hard to read. The second picture I would say is more appropriate.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * I think they are labeled appropriately.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I think so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Maybe alternate spaces between the two. One on one side and one on the other.

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, there are more than 2 sources. I think you should check the reliability of each of these sources first.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The list seems exhaustive. Though there could be at least one more source that talks about the archaeological patterns of the site rather than the military patterns.
 * 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?
 * It seems to be following a similar pattern, more could be added though.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * It feels more complete but there are things missing.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content added is somewhat strong. There is still room for improvement.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Broken down into smaller section. Small unnecessary information can be removed. Adding more relevant archaeological information.