User:UrnessTyler/Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton/Lokkenva0117 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? (provide username)
 * UrnessTyler
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:UrnessTyler/Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * (So far working on adding to the later life section and marriage section of Eliza Hamilton article. 250 words with 2 citation. Need to cross wiki link about grange house and cite.) Yes this is the lead
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No lead about the topic is given
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No it does not
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No lead about the information, it just begins at "Marriage" heading
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * There is no lead

Lead evaluation
The only part of a lead that is present is what the editor has added. A lead of the topic information needs to be added.

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?
 * No

Content evaluation
Good addition to add the part of the Hamilton family home in the third paragraph under Marriage. The content was not overwhelming and added concise detail to the article.

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
The tone and balance of the added work is neutral and objective in its presentation. I did not find anything wrong with the added information.

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?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Most of them do a couple did not.

Sources and references evaluation
Links and references were for the most part reliable secondary sources, pulled from neutral sources that give factual evidence throughout the article. Upon looking through some of the links to references I found two that didn't work.

8.Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton". New York State Museum. January 1, 2004. Archived from the original on September 14, 2015. Retrieved September 30, 2015.

22."Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton". New York State Museum.Archived from the original on November 6, 2019. RetrievedSeptember 30, 2015.

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
All of the information added is to the existing article which is already fairly well organized.

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?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Images and media evaluation
No images added to article. Probably no need as original article uses plenty good images.

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?
 * N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * N/A
 * 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?
 * N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * N/A

New Article Evaluation
This is an existing article.

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?
 * They provide more detail on the later life of Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I believe the content added was relevant and not in need of improving. However, I believe some of the existing sources could be fixed and/or updated if the editor has the resources to do so.

Overall evaluation
I believe this is a very good start to the Wikipedia contribution. There was not a massive amount of irrelevant information added, details were added to give the reader a better understanding how Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton helped in carrying on the legacy of Alexander Hamilton. The sources the editor added were accurate secondary sources. The information added was non-biased and objective in conveying the new information.

The only areas that the editor still needs to work on is possibly fixing the existing references that do not have pages anymore, or come up as errors. Lastly, incorporating a lead section to introduce the topic.