User:Mollyantfarm111/Croatan/Skitlizard 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? Mollyantfarm111
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mollyantfarm111/Croatan

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead does include what was added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Indeed it does
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead is missing this section in part. It doesn't give what is to come, but instead gives a brief summary.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It includes things that would be better off in another section of the article, such as the comment about Roanoke.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is almost too concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content is somewhat relevant. The first paragraph is most relevant, and gets less relevant from there.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The second and third added paragraphs don't seem to belong all that well.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content is rather neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The third added paragraph seems to hold some sass.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * All the pertinent viewpoints seem to be represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * the added content is very factual and not very persuasive.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Indeed, but more sources are needed for the amount of information provided.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

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?

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?

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
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * There could be some more sources that give some more background information.
 * 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?
 * The article contains all of these.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * yes it does

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * the article is more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths are that it adds to the overall knowledge of the topic in a clear concise manner.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content can be improved with grammar revisions and more sources.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article holds many impartial facts about the Croatan people, but it needs a few more sources and some grammatical edits. Also, try explaining that "indian" is a term the Croatan people chose for themselves earlier on as now people call them Native Americans.