User:RLW016/Jones Lake State Park/Freshwater598 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? RLW016
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:RLW016/Jones Lake State Park

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes the Lead has been updated by my peer, the references were updated for certain sentences.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the lead is concise and to the point of what the rest of the article is talking about. The Lead gives information about the location, and size, and what its used for.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? In a way yes, the Lead does mention topics that are later talked about in the article. There are brief mentions about the recreation and ecology in the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The Lead does not mention things that are not presented in the article, all the content that is mentioned is represented.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise and to the point, no over detailed information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is relevant to the topic, the references added are more accurate compared to the initial live article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content added is mostly from the NC State park website which, understandably is updated frequently, or when new information has come about. Some of the citations added are older, one even dating back to 1952, however the content of these articles is not time dependent and can be used without worries of outdated information. (For reference the 1952 article content is about Carolina Bays and just general information).
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content that does not belong, however (I am sure with further editing this will be fixed) some places seems as though they need a reference
 * 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? The content added in this article is neutral and serves information purposes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are no claims that have bias towards any particular position, person, or company.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think that all the viewpoints are represented fairly, the History section is backed up by a reliable source and is based off of accounted for history.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I think that the only persuasion that is present in this article is to get people to go to the park, but no bias.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The new references are reliable however, I would recommend adding in some peer reviewed sources (these might have been peer reviewed but I did not see any indication when I first looked over them). 
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are through and reflect the content of the article.
 * Are the sources current? The sources from NC State Park website are presumably current, however the other sources are 3 years old, or older. That being said in this instance I do not find that the age of some of these sources matter because they cover topics that have not really changed (such as the new species discovered).
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? 7 out of the 10 sources are from the same website, while the other 3 are from research articles or journals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All the links work for this article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is written clearly and is easy to read there is not too much Jargon in the information provided/added.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no grammatical or spelling errors that I see in this article (it is always a good idea to look over this, I am not the best with grammar or spelling myself so I could be wrong about my above statement)
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The section titles reflect the information that is provided under this tab.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content that was added provided the article with better sources to back up the information that was written out in the article. With these sourcing edits there is a sense of completeness when looking at it.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the content added is that it gives more reliable sources to the content, and does not leave people guessing when they are reading through and trying to figure out how this information was collected.
 * How can the content added be improved?  The content can be improved maybe by adding in some more peer reviewed articles and maybe some more recent ones as well as maybe adding in, not only sources but some additional information about the Jones Lake State Park. 

Overall evaluation
These edits were very helpful to this article, It helped to create a more professional article with reliable sources.