User:Sydneykrieger/Missing persons cases along U.S. Route 29 in Virginia/Michael Lloyd2020 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

I added more info on Sage Smith's case.

I fixed a grammar issue and added clarity

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (Sydneykrieger)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Missing persons cases along U.S. Route 29 in Virginia

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * 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
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, she added more information to the Sage Smith case
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, it is all relevant to the cases involved

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, it is purely factual
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No it all seems to be based on facts as it is cited.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Due to the article being based on information involving missing persons cases it is based on reports so there is no opinion.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it is factual

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes it is based on a reports from July in 2019 which is fairly recent
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources used are thorough the site used is somewhat questionable as it is not as well known.
 * 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? It is
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? It does not
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is placed in the correct location and relevant location

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? It does not seem so
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Quite 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? It is focused on the particular case.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes it added information on a case
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It adds an update to the case which strengthens the article
 * How can the content added be improved? Possibly by including photos from the website used.

Overall evaluation
I found that the addition of a missing person of interest did strengthen the article. The only other change I would make would be the addition of another source as the link goes to a website that at first glance doesn't seem to be extremely reliable due to it not being name-brand. I understand that main-brand newspapers may not have covered the event in that case the addition of another source would help. I also think the addition of an image of the victim before they were missing would strengthen the article as anyone reading would be able to relate to the article more. An addition to each report of an image would really make the article impact the reader.