User:Wyomingcowboy307/Wyoming State Capitol/Sknisson 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? (WyomingCowboy307)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Wyoming State Capitol

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * This was an article that has been updated but the content added relates to the lead that has been given.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead is concise and clearly states what the rest of the article is about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead includes a brief description.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise and is detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content is relevant to the topic and includes more information that is not already included in the article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content that has been added is indeed up-to-date. It includes some older information but also includes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All the content belongs and has everything that it needs immediately for the article. There is another article that covers the same thing as this but it is spelled capital and not capitol.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content is neutral and doesn't show favoritism towards any particular thing.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The only opinion that I can see on the article is that the building is beautiful and is part of a great movement.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There aren't any parts that are overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * There is no attempt at persuading the reader any one way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * It appears that everything that is added has a source attached to it.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources that are given are related to the topic and are linked to be able to be read and studied.
 * Are the sources current?
 * There are several sources that are sourced in 1987 when the building was in progress or built but there are also sources that are recent to 2019.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All the links that I have attempted were working.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * All the content is easy to read and concise. The information is also interesting and not merely a stating a fact.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The content added doesn't immediately appear to have any grammatical errors or spelling mistakes.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The things that are written are well organized and, although isn't that big, have been put in an order were the reader can follow 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?
 * The gallery that is attached to the article has some images that include different views of inside the building providing different perspectives.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The images are well-captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * As far as I know the images are within Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The images are laid out in easy to follow and are in descending order.

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?
 * The article meets the notability requirements and appear to be supported by enough reliable sources from google scholar.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The references available are complete and provide good information on the Wyoming state capitol.
 * 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?
 * The article appears to follow the same way that other articles have been constructed.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * The article has several links that go to different pages.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The article has plenty of information but still there are different things that could be added. Since this is a new article the information that has been put in makes the article feel complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The article generally has strong content and good links to extra articles and references.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The only improvement that I can think of is there could be more content.
 * The article is well written and overall well done.