User:Ms0615/Black River (North Carolina)/R33nayl3aves 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? Ms0615 & MamaUniversee
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ms0615/Black River (North Carolina)

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 has not been updated to reflect the changes that the editors have made.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
''Content added is relevant and fills in gaps in the original article. The content is up-to-date and belongs in each of the subheadings created.''

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
''Content is neutral in tone. The content doesn't carry any obvious bias and appears to be purely informative.''

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
''Sources appear to be current. The oldest source seems to date back to 2015, but is still relevant to the subject. As for the identity of the authors and whether the authors represent a diverse spectrum- I cannot confirm the identity for all of the authors. Some of the sources don't directly link to a social media or information about the author and thus I only know the names. At least one author was of a marginalized gender identity. All of the links appear to be working and the sources are rather thorough with citations to available literature on the topic.''

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 well-written and easy to read. The information is straight to the point and informative without being "wordy". I did not find any spelling or grammatical errors. The content is organized into clearly distinct sections that match 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?
 * 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
''The content overall improved the article by providing information that previously was not on the article. The content is more in-depth and informative than the small one-section article that the Black River is currently. Strengths of the content include a range of information that reflect a variety of sections. The content could be improved by adding more information to each the sections as each seem small right now. This would improve it by providing more detailed information and overall make the article more informative. During the course of the peer review I noticed that some information was being added.''

''I noticed that the article was broken up and organized in sections that flowed well and described each of the sections succinctly. I noted this as an idea or generally, as a reminder to better organize my own article. The organization of the article is probably one of its greatest strengths.''