User:R33nayl3aves/Singletary Lake/Knm027 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? (provide username) R33nayl3aves
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:R33nayl3aves/Singletary Lake

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has not been updated to include the new content. I think adding the facts of its a reservoir and that it goes into the Cape Fear would be good additions into the lead.
 * 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? The article only has one section, so adding details about the how few fish can thrive there would be good.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Its relatively concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The info in the sandbox belongs in the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? N/A

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
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, they are from different government agencies.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links to the sources work. There seems like there are errors for the references 4 and 5, but the links still work. It's just a formatting issue with wiki, so you'll have to edit the title and the website so it's not giving you anything in red. If you need help with fixing that I can help with that! Adding a few links to the wiki pages of some of these species could be a good idea.

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? I do not see any grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think you could combine the two articles about pH, otherwise it is well-organized.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media Did not add images, maybe getting images of the recreationally caught fish would be a good idea.


 * 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? Not a new article!
 * 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? Yes, the content makes the article more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The article doesn't even mention things like pH or the different kinds of fish and amphibians there.
 * How can the content added be improved? Just the small things I've mentioned previously!