User talk:Mwill347/4ocean/Bibliograpy

User:Mwill347/4ocean/Natinat0519 Peer Review

Peer review

General info Whose work are you reviewing? Mwill347 Link to draft you're reviewing:4ocean Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does not. I believe more information can be added that relates to the articles major sections. 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? Very concise Lead evaluation Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the sources are not older than two years. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No Content evaluation 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 Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes there are sources linked to all the information that is added. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes Are the sources current? Yes they are within a year or two Check a few links. Do they work? Yes Sources and references evaluation 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? There is one error with spelling. The text should read "fishermen" instead of "fisherman". Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes Organization evaluation Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? More images should be included. Are images well-captioned? There is only one picture and it is not captioned. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes Images and media evaluation 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? Yes How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes there are multiple sources. 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? Yes Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes there are two other articles. New Article Evaluation Overall impressions Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes there is more information. What are the strengths of the content added? Provides a deeper knowledge of the organization. How can the content added be improved? More information can be added so the readers understand more about the company and what it has done.