User:Noah.H97/Texas Road/15blades 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
I like the creative tv screen fall open effect on the contents box. Made me more aware and pay more attention to the writing skill too.


 * Whose work are you reviewing?  (Noah.H97)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: (Texas Road)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Sort of. Maybe add something about the trail location recently or if there are laws on that trail that help today still.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, but needs more peer reviewed articles.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, and the references also have references.
 * Are the sources current? I think 2006 for a history article is current.
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, I think that also counts as current because those statues in Dallas at Pioneer Plaza sill exist
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, but not close captioned. There could be a sentence or two about the statues and that specific location
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, and aesthetically as well

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? Im not sure if it represents all available literature or not but the sources give important massive detail. Yes.
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Easy to read and understandable flow of story telling. Its not speaking in different science.
 * How can the content added be improved? It was clear and interesting. I would add just a small explanation of related info about the statues as stated earlier.