User:SyNick/Eisenhower High School (Yakima, Washington)/Chuma45 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? SyNick
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SyNick/Eisenhower High School (Yakima, Washington)

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
The Lead is very straight forward which is nice. The intro sentence has very important information on the location of the school and the updated list of school in the Yakima School District is very helpful.

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 is really good, I really like the incorporation of the "New School" section as well as the lawsuit subsection. The rest of the content seem very up to date and does not seem to be any gaps of missing content.

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 are in the article were debate would be more prominent would be the lawsuit subsection but the information is all very well cited and presented neutrally. The work references a lot of other sources which the content very credible and reliable.

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
A lot of sources have been added to article including sources from 2019 used to discuss the most current academic data of the school. All sources seem to work and none of them seem to be biased towards any point of view represented in the article.

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
As I read the article I did not find any grammatical errors, the content is well organized and reads smoothly. The sections, I believe are well organized to present the content straight forward and well.

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
The only images is included in the infobox the image's caption talks about the blue wall and the library which are discussed in the article and it's helpful to look at. I think finding a picture of the old building would be helpful when discussing the new school.

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?

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
The content has greatly improved the original article. The most interesting part of the original article was the notable alumni and I really liked the way that was kept but now it is just another section of the article which is packed other other support interesting sections such as the new school, the lawsuit, the academic data the school's diversity.