User:Turtlesaregr8/Portsmouth African Burying Ground/Ns.thot03 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?
 * Turtlesareg8
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Portsmouth African Burying Ground

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I
 * It does not appear that they have yet. The lead can be better shaped when there is more information.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead speaks to the information contained in the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The article in itself cannot be separated into major sections based on the amount of information.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The opening statement speaks to its location, but nothing else.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * concise in the sense that because the article lacks information, so does the intro.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes! great job expanding on the info. It adds more depth to the article
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes. The source you used is fantastic. I like that. you were able to pull a lot of information from the one source.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No. More information could be added to the article in general.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article could speak a little more to what the grave means symbolically. It clearly has some significance in black history and I think that is important to be addressed.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content is definitely neutral. It mainly speaks facts.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * it is hard to make a conclusion based on the information, but since it is mostly just facts surrounding the findings, it is not biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think more could be added about the building and response to the grave.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes. Articles are a great secondary source and they appear to be from reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * While there are not many sources, I know they can be attributed to the lack of information in general. I am sure as more is added to the article, a more diverse set of sources will be used.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most of the articles appear to be from within the last. 20 years. I would definitely look into using more current articles.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I also assume the ones to be used will. Most of these sources are articles. I think information from other sources could be useful as well.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes. When I tried it opened the articles flawlessly.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The information contained in the article is concise and easy to read. It uses clear and straightforward language.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The article does not appear to have any. spelling or grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No. The content is not organized and the bullet points make it a little more disorganized. I would try to restructure the information.

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?
 * Right now no. The few sources supply some information, but not enough.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * `No. It is not exhaustive enough. There is not enough information, and probably from the lack of more sources. A more diverse set would be useful.
 * 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?
 * It has no infoboxes, sections (and therefore section headings). The images are sectioned off from the writing, but I think there could be a way to incorporate them into the actual article as more information is added.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * it links to other articles that contain other information. It is useful to find more information in general to use in the article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The edits made have definitely helped the article. With that being said, I can see that it would be a lot of work to add multiple sections, and I do not expect that you will! Adding some more information at least in some aspect will help complete the article in general :)
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I think the current information displayed is good at portraying the gist of the Portsmouth African Burial. I believe you have set yourself up to add some great information to the article! I'm also glad to see you have easily identified and been working on the bigger problems (info, organization) if the article. I can't wait to see the finished product.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * It can be improved through adding content in general. it seems like the article is a very rough draft. Any information that is added and properly tied in to a common theme will improve the article by a lot.