User:TLHami26/Hoxnian Stage/Jargu006 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? (TLHami26)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:TLHami26/Hoxnian Stage

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? YES
 * 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? Introduction is good, body just needs a little more info maybe extra details on something mentioned in the intro. Maybe add an image?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? NO
 * 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
 * Is the content added up-to-date? When looking at sources I found that some of the sources were indeed up to date but there was one or two that were not
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I feel like there is a little bit of content missing maybe in the middle section.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Did a great job on article sounding neutral I did not find anything that seemed bias in any way.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? NO
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Underpresented maybe the history section.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No as stated before the article seems to do a good job at sounding unbias and well neautral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All the sources seem legitimate
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? NO
 * Are the sources current? Some of the sources are current but there are maybe one or two that are not current
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links work perfectly

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content was indeed easy to read u think the only thing I would say to add are the hyperlinks to things like mIs11 or mIs9
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is broken down but doesn't include much information in the two sections following the introduction

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?
 * 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?