User:ThomasSavage111/Wagner Houseboat/Bonnie Weglin 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? ThomasSavage111
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:ThomasSavage111/Wagner Houseboat

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, more detail has been added to describe when it was build and the location.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the subject is clearly stated.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Lead is expanded upon more through history and ownership in the following paragraphs.
 * 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? Lead is concise and easy to understand.

Lead evaluation
Overall lead is great, strong start with relevant information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, everything is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the history of the boat is described well, easy to understand why it was built and why it was moved.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Some content missing from ownership section, but it looks like it is planned to be added. No content stuck out as not belonging, all seems relevant.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Tone is neutral, no bias apparent.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No claims seem bias, written neutrally with historical standpoint in mind.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? None apparent.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it describes history without persuasiveness.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall the tone is great, neutrality in all descriptions.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, external links are backed up with relevant sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, many are coming from historical societies and credible places.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, all seem up to date.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article flows well and easy to understand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None visible.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, clearly separated.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, some are old but they are still clear.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, all seem to come from the wikipedia commons.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, good variety of old and new as well.

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? Yes, lots has been expanded upon.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved? It could be interesting to go into some architectural details of the house if there is anything significant - maybe style, past renovations, the architect, structural aspects, etc.