User:SamMeurer/Arkansas Review: A Journal of Delta Studies/Darbyyself 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) SamMeurer
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SamMeurer/Arkansas Review: A Journal of Delta Studies

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?

Lead evaluation
Lead is concise and clear, and it leaves not a lot of room for question. It follows the standard expectation of a lead sentence well. It names the subject of the article, places it into a category, and provides additional information. The lead itself does not include a brief description of the article's major sections but it does provide a contents box that clearly lays out what all is/will be published in the article.

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?

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant and up-to-date. I feel as though everything included so far is beneficial, important, and helpful to readers.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added so far is neutral and unbiased. Most of what has been added has been placed into charts and graphs. It is very visual and factual, so it is not persuasive. It is simply informing readers of information behind the Arkansas Review.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are two sources that have been added to the article so far, and they help to back up all of the information that has been provided. They are thorough, and provide a great deal of information, data, and stats to make the article more credible. They are current sources, which help to increase the credibility of the article even more. Both links to both of the sources 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?

Organization evaluation
The content is very much well-written and easy to read. The article is organized, formed, and structured in a very visual way, which makes it easy to follow and grasp the concept even better. After reading through several times, there are no major apparent grammatical or spelling errors.

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?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images included in the article.

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?

New Article Evaluation
The notability requirements are reached, as there are two sources--which also means that no, it is not exhaustive on its list of sources. It does follow the patterns of other articles (there is a contents box, an info box, and several different boxes that display useful information).

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?

Overall evaluation
Overall I think that this editor has done a great job so far. I like the layout of the article, and the fact that it is very factual. The sections are not long or over-elaborate. I think that potentially another section or two could be added using mainly just the form of paragraphs because the lead section is really the only part of the article that is formatted in that way. But other than that, great job.