User:Nathan1152/Artillery/Mitcht608 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? Nathan1152
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nathan1152/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, this led introduces the concept of light artillery to the reader.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, there is no excess information and states point clearly.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the discussion of light artillery steaming from the 7 years war.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead is simply an overview.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise and does not contain excess.

Lead evaluation
It is a great lead that I feel fits this article well under the context of your information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the topic is artillery and this information is the development of said technology.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, information such as size and dimensions and origin does not tend to change.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, information is concise and well fitting.

Content evaluation
Great content that fits the criteria of the article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Information is fact based and backed, there is no indication of bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, none are present.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is nothing that indicated overrepresentation or under representation.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, I felt no persuasion nor any indication of persuasion.

Tone and balance evaluation
This information presents itself in a neutral context.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? What information is there that is specific is credited with a good secondary source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the source found shows the historical weight of the work.
 * Are the sources current? The source is from 1970, it may not be recent but it still holds reliance specifically when talking about the origins of a technology as well as specifications.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
Good use of the secondary source.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is simple yet concise in manor.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I noticed during the few times I read through.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Sections are well organized to reflect what the author is trying to achieve.

Organization evaluation
The section is organized well with specific information you are trying to provide to the reader.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article I feel is improved by the supplemental information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is strong in the sense that it is conceive and to the point of what the author wants you to understand.
 * How can the content added be improved? Continue to build on content (which appears to be your intention either way)

Overall evaluation
This is good work that will supplement the piece on artillery for Wikipedia, good job.