User:ParkSlay3r/Christmas Bay (Texas)/Dsarah15 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? ParkSlay3r
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Christmas Bay (Texas)

This is a good start to your article. The information in your article appears to be up-to-date and neutral. It does not include any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. Your introduction paragraph is clear and easy to read and does not contain any grammatical errors. Your introductory sentence concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. To make your introductory paragraph even stronger, however, you could include a brief description of the article's major sections. I like how you included a wide variety of information in your introduction, such as where Christmas Bay receives its discharge, that areas that are connected to it, and what its surface area is. All of the information that you have so far in your article is relevant to the topic, however, there is a lot of information that still needs to be added. For example, you could add a section on the flaura and fauna of Christmas Bay and the impacts that humans have had on the bay. Also, if there has ever been controversy surrounding Christmas Bay, you could include a section on that, too. Although you have a lot of great information, I feel that the information could be better organized and broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic. For example, you could label one section "the geography of Christmas Bay." Moreover, all of your content is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information that are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. I clicked on all of the sources within your article, and they all work. The images that you have included in your article enhance my understanding of the topic and are well-captioned. They are laid out in a visually appealing way and give your article a professional and organized feel.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?
 * 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?