User:SchoolAssignmentYR23/Valley of the Queens/Nku2003 Peer Review

General info
SchoolAssingmentYR23
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:SchoolAssignmentYR23/Valley of the Queens
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * - yes the lead has been updated to reflect the new content added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * - yes the lead does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * - yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * - no it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * - the lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * -yes the content added is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * - the content added is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * - I did not find any content missing or any content that doesn't 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?
 * - yes I would say the content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * - I did not find any of the claims to be heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * - No their is not.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * - no the new content does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * - yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * - yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * - yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * - yes they are current
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * - I believe the sources they used are good and they don't need others.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * - yes they do work.
 * - yes they do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * - the content added is very well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * - Not that I could find their were no spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * - yes the content is well organized

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * - no
 * 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 for 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?
 * - yes
 * 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?
 * - no
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * - yes
 * - yes

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 added has improved the quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * - the geology section
 * How can the content added be improved?