User:Tayat1/African American Geneology/Carolinecatterton 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?
 * Tayat1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Tayat1/sandbox

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, it informs the reader in a clear sentence what the topic is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the Lead includes a description of the history and type of tests used for African American geneology.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, they have not talked about DNA testing yet; however, they made a section where they will write about the topic in the future. Tayat1 has planned to write about it.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is very concise, but explains in just enough detail what the article is about.

Lead evaluation
I think that your lead is the perfect length, and covers/explains in just enough detail what your topic is about. Be aware that you still need to cover topics that are talked about in the Lead, such as DNA testing.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes- continue writing about DNA
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes

Content evaluation
I believe that you are on the right track with your content. Try to cover every topic mentioned in your Lead.

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

Tone and balance evaluation
Your article has a very neutral tone. Continue to keep it that way as you move on!

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?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most of them
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Reference #6 does not work. It brings the viewer to a page that says "Page not found."

Sources and references evaluation
I would check all of your sources' links to make sure that they take you to the correct page. Your sources are reliable, as they are from scholarly articles and trusted websites. However, you just need to make sure that the links work. Also, Make sure that your footnotes are links to the source, too. You can do this by clicking "cite" at the top of page and hitting "basic form."

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
Your organization is clear and concise.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, just one
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Images and media evaluation
Your Freedman's Bureau picture is good. I would add more pictures as you continue writing about DNA.

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?
 * Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Yes, not too 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

New Article Evaluation
So far, everything looks good. Try adding more pictures/ subheadings within headings to make it more visually pleasing.

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?
 * So far, good
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Add more information/subheadings

Overall evaluation
You are on the right track. My advice is to add more pictures and subheadings, and to make sure that your article talks about every subject covered in your Lead.