User:RachKingg/Lake Georgetown/AntrelleClark98 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) RachKingg
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:RachKingg/Lake Georgetown

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes it reflects new information added by my peer.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? There is an introductory sentence which gives the lake's name and where it is located.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It could be a better overall description.
• 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? It is fairly concise for the amount of information provided.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? All content added is relevant to Lake Georgetown.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes the content is up-to-date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Maybe an image (if there is one that can be found) , and the other subheadings that Dr. Chraibi detected (also if can be found).
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No; No.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes it is neutral.
• 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.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes the content has reliable sources.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Most of the sources reflect the available literature on the topic.
• Are the sources current? Yes they are current.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the sources come from different organizations.
• Check a few links. Do they work? They do work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is concise, and gets to the point the author is trying to make.
• 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, it is well organized and broken down into some major points recommended by Dr. Chraibi.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No.
• 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

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

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes the content added makes the Wikipedia page for Lake Georgetown more complete.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The references on where the author received their information.
• How can the content added be improved? By adding more information.

Overall evaluation

I enjoyed peer reviewing your article. I believe you are on the right track.