User:Mkan18/Ypres Salient/LizziMcEligot 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? 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 it has been updated and includes extensive information on the sites geography and location.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes, it is a brief but concise introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead describes the history of the site and the battles that took place there.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise, to a point. I think it might be worth adding more details to outline what the rest of the article will be about

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all of the content pertains to the subject.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, as far as I can tell the content added is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, everything in the article is somewhat relevant to the site.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes the content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? View points maybe from the enemies of the Allies forces are excluded but they never had a predominant present at the site.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not, it merely conveys information.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? New content is backed by a few different sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current as of 2020.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes the content added is extremely well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No the content is all grammatically correct.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes the informationnp resent is broken down into topics

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes, I feel I have a more precise understanding of the subject after looking at the images.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes the image titles are concise
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes I believe so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes they are.

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation:
Overall I thought this was a relevant and interesting article about the battles and history of the Ypres district. I liked how concise your intro was and although I might suggest adding some more detail to give your readers a preview of what your article is about, I also liked how short and concise it is and I may shorten mine down as a result.

Although the article has a lot of information about past battles, it doesn't really have information on what the site is or how it was excavated and discovered. Rather than regaining the history of the Ypres district, maybe try adding more topics of archaeological focus such as what artifacts were found at the site and the challenged of excavating in a modern residential area.

I thought your writing was excellent and completely unbiased, it was very informative, nice work!