User:Wesrhea/York (explorer)/Mellnov24 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) Wesrhea.
• Link to draft you're reviewing: York (explorer)

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? No.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I found it to be a little too specific for an introduction. It makes the later sections repetitive because the specific information has already been given. It maybe needs some more generic information.

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.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. It mentions the unfairness of slavery throughout York's life, but I feel that is not biased because it is what happened.
• 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.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
• Are the sources current? Yes, they are all within the last 20 years or so.
• 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? It maybe needs some more organization with separate paragraphs to make it easier to read than a large chunk of text.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a few grammatical errors, as well as a few typos.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
• 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, it does add a new dimension to the preexisting article.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The added content gives a great picture of York's journey with Lewis and Clark.
• How can the content added be improved? It needs to be read over again for grammatical errors and typos, and needs separate paragraphs within the sections of the article to make it easier to read.