User:Mkan18/Ypres Salient/Nikkitorno Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * I am reviewing the Ypres Salient article rough draft by user Mkan18.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Mkan18/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 introductory section of this article is only one sentence long, and this sentence has been reworded slightly from the existing Wikipedia article. The lead includes an introductory sentence, although this is the only sentence present in the Lead section of the draft. It would be beneficial to simplify the phrasing of this sentence and add additional sentences to introduce new concepts or details relevant to introducing the site. The lead does not give a description of the article's main sections; the Lead only gives a description of what the site is. The sections themselves are very well developed, so great job there! However, the Lead would be even stronger if there was a description of the sections in the beginning of the article. The Lead includes a short overview of some information in the article. There are no extraneous topics mentioned in the lead, nor is there any information mentioned in the Lead which is not addressed in more detail in a section of the article. Overall, the lead is very short and relatively concise, but it may flow better if the phrasing was simplified. In just one line, there are many important pieces of information about the site, but perhaps breaking up the slightly meandering sentence into two succinct sentences would allow the reader to have a smoother introduction to the article.

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
All content added to the article seems relevant to the topic. However, there are small instances in which the content may not belong within the section it has been included in, though it is absolutely relevant to the broader topic of the archaeological site. For example, there is a sentence under the "First Battle of Ypres" sub-section of the article that explains what a "salient" is in a military context. This is absolutely useful information, but it is not specifically relevant to the first battle. Thus, even though the content belongs in the article, it may be better suited in the Lead of the article, or including it as a mini introduction in the "Battles of Ypres Salient" section may also help this information be communicated in a more appropriate place. From all I can tell, the content that has been added to the article is up to date, though there are sections where it appears that content is missing. Most notably, the "Archaeology" section and "excavation" subsection are both blank, indicating content should be included there. This is not really a critique, for it is completely understandable that a rough draft may not include all the content one wishes to include in the final submission, but it seems relevant to note this lack of archaeological content, given that we are in a class focused on archaeology. The content added on the battles, however, appears to have taken a lot of time and effort, and ultimately this is a very important section of content to organize and communicate because the specific archaeological site being covered was a World War I site.

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 tone of the content in this article is consistently neutral, and there are no claims made that appear to be biased. The information is reported as though one is simply stating facts, and there is no indication that the reader is supposed to be persuaded into favoring a certain perspective. Any personal viewpoints are completely left out of the content, and this leads to the evaluation that there are no over or underrepresented viewpoints in the article. One very small instance where a sentence is not outwardly biased but may be analyzed to convey a position is the use of the phrasing, "This situation changed little, despite . . ." in the "First Battle of Ypres" subsection. The use of this phrasing does not change the objective truth of the information that follows in the sentence, but, despite a rather formal tone, this could be seen as giving a slightly negative connotation to the content. It is not that the unbiased nature of the content is betrayed by phrasing a sentence like this, but an even more neutral way to begin the sentence may be something like, "The position remained unchanged through the . . ." I only suggest this because choosing to phrase the lack of improvement of the situation "despite" military efforts does softly imply that there was a sense of frustration or failure that accompanied the lack of change. That may have been the case from the Allied perspective, but from the German viewpoint, this would have been good news. Just a small suggestion- over all, the tone of the article is very objective in neutral, so keep up the strong work!

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
All new content in the article has a source cited, and the use of sources seems to be thorough. There might be more literature available on this site than others because World War I has been studied quite heavily, but there are also many sources cited, so the citations on the article's content likely reflect the availability of information on this topic well. While the sources span a range of time periods, they do include a few recent works, and even the sources which are older can still be considered to be "current" in that the information they are referenced for providing is not information that should have changed much since the source was written. All the links I followed from the footnotes and references of this article worked and promptly opened working sites.

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 content is clear and easy to follow, and the arrangement of sections and subsections allows the article to be navigated smoothly. There are a few grammatical errors throughout the article, but these are all minor instances of, for instance, missing a comma in a compound sentence. One example of this is the last sentence of the "Fourth Battle of Ypres" subsection, which currently reads, " . . . pushed the German forces out of the Salient entirely and they did not return," because a comma is needed before the "and." This, admittedly, is an incredibly picky thing to point out, but I hope that emphasizes that there are no egregious problems with the grammar and spelling in this draft. Over all, the content is well-organized, and the sections created all reflect relevant parts of the topic. The content is put together very well, and making just a few grammatical adjustments would take that awesome start and give an even better end product.

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 article includes images of two maps to help the reader understand the layout of the site. The captions for both images are concise and helpful, and both images seem to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images are also placed in a way that is visually appealing as they are perfectly in line with the sections they are meant to go with. It is also very nice that both images are aligned to the same orientation on the righthand side of the page, for this means the placement of the images does not interfere with any of the text. For future edits, it would be very nice to see another image added in a similar alignment for the Archaeology section, when that is completed.

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
This section is not applicable because the article is not new.

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 have a very positive impression of this article. The content that has been added seems to improve the overall quality of the article, and the content seems more complete with the added information and improved formatting. Of course, the article will feel even more complete when content is added to the "Archaeology" section, but even the creation of this section in the article improves its quality by clarifying that the site is not only a significant historical site but also that it has been studied archaeologically. Past this section, the aspect of the article that would benefit the most from a little extra attention would be the Lead because it is very short, and the wording is slightly awkward. Adding maybe a sentence for each section would round out the Lead very nicely, and that combined with the content about the archaeology and excavation(s) of the site would make for some wonderful additions to the content of the article. Keep up the great work!