User:SamMeurer/Arkansas Review: A Journal of Delta Studies/TheWookieWikster 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:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?Yes, it's a new article made from scratch.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?Yes, there's a lot of links, which I like, they help frame what is being talked about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not really.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?Everything in the lead is essential to briefly understand what the article is about.So no.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?Yes. The editorial staff section could use a brief sentence stating how recent this information is.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?Yes, there isn't any info in the History section, although the user states in a note that it will be added later.

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?Most of it is from the actual journal itself, so I think they are relevant to the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * 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, although for my personal taste, it could use more written information and less info box information.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?None that I could find.
 * 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?
 * 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? Both sources are from the Arkansas Review so I'm not sure that they're independent of the subject, but they are secondary and it is 2 sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?It's not terribly exhaustive.
 * 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?There is a lot of information available. There are a lot of links and resources for further clarification. There are mainly only two secondary sources though, but I feel this is easily improved.
 * How can the content added be improved?I think there should be more written information and less infobox information.