User:Mkan18/Ypres Salient/Matthew Jez 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?
 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The lead contains a good portion of the critical content found in the article. I would probably recommend adding a few more sentences summarizing the rest of the article's main points, namely information on the site's finding and methods used for excavation, but the information provided in the lead makes for a great foundation.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content added into the article is extremely detailed in a few areas. Although there are only two sections as of now, the article's location as well as the Battle of Ypres Salient are thoroughly represented and well written. A few more sections discussing the site's discovery, methods of discovery as well as contemporary evolution of the site's findings would go a long way. The current sections, however, suggest that the finished article will be structured very well.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The author consistently maintained a neutral tone. At no point did they refer to themselves in the first person, reference the audience or speak using any language referencing anything other than objective fact.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
The sources provided within the article were all reliable sources that reflected the information in the article. The links that I tested all took me to the proper sources, and the sources used seem to be titled correctly.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is well written and is free of most grammatical and syntax-based errors. The simplified nature of the article helps to keep the structure clean, but a few more subsections distributing some of the information in the first section would help to improve the structure to a greater degree. As mentioned before, a few more sections discussing the site's discovery, methods used for discovery as well as its contemporary impact would also go a long way in adding more detail about the site. If the structure maintains the blueprint established with this first draft the article will be very effective.

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


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
The images used seem to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright policies and are laid out in accordance with the sections they are representing. Adding a few more images based on certain details of the site, such as images of the structures found within or details demonstrating the aftermath of the Battle of Ypres Salient (if discoverable) would do wonders for the article's format. Overall, the images are captioned appropriately and the images provided are welcome additions to the article.

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?

New Article Evaluation
The article is supported by the correct number of sources and the sources are appropriately sited and discoverable. The article links to an appropriate number of external articles and does not contain any unnecessary information boxes.

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
The content added within the article appropriately represent the sources cited. The addition of a few more sections would create more context of the site during a few more periods in time. This would also result in the opportunity for a few more secondary sources and external articles to round out the context that the article can provide. However, the information added provides the majority of the crucial context of the site itself, its location as well as a few events associated with the site. Adding a bit more context in the style provided within this draft would result in a very well-rounded article.