User:WJenos/New London Academy (Virginia)/Ryienblackwood 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

 * username: WJenos
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: New London Academy (Virginia)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? __ I feel as if the wording could be more uniform with wikipedia and less like a paper for a class.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?__As I stated previously, the leading sentence would be better if it clearly defines the name, and year it was founded from the start.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?__ The lead does not mention any information that ties in the religious section stated in your sandbox.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?__ The Charter is worth mentioning later in a different section, yet all the information about it is in the lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?__ It's slightly over detailed with the information about the Chartered General assembly, consider moving the sentences that go into detail about that to another section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?__Yes, it was a great idea to add information about Thomas Hall and Evan Hall, as well as make those minor updates to the general information after the lead. Although, I would not recommend including the sentence "Some accounts note that there was an existing school that was formalized with the Charter, but there are not enough records to support the claim" that is stated in your introductory section.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?__ The information seems up to date, though if there were any sources from more recent years I would recommend adding information from those as well.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?__ I am wary about this statement, "Some accounts note that there was an existing school that was formalized with the Charter, but there are not enough records to support the claim" . Also, the quote does not seem necessary. Consult Professor Donald about the use of the quote,"...to be a renovation of, or an addition to, an existing building, not a new, freestanding structure."

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?__The information represented seems to be neutral. However, the tone feels inconsistent with a normal wikipedia article. Consider revising.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?__ no, I do not find any biased positions or tones.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?__no, I do not find any overrepresented or underrepresented information.
 * 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, there are a lot of National Register Nomination forms and other sources like that.
 * 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?__Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?__The introductory sentence could be phrased more clear and precise.The second sentence started with 'Thus' and I am not sure that is the best choice of transition words.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?__ I did not come ac ross any errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?__For the most part yes, maybe move that information about teh Chartered General Assembly to a new section or a pre-existing section that would support it better.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media__N/A


 * 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? The article will have great substance once your new information is added, and over all most of the information seems to support the article well.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?__it made some of the content more clear and concise, while adding the different halls tied together a proper picture of the campus.
 * How can the content added be improved?__ maybe taking out the quote and rearranging some of the information in the lead. other than that everything looks great! Great job Billy!