User:Pcburghardt/New London, Virginia/Bailey Knotts Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
- Pcburghardt
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
[edit]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?
- yes
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- no
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- concise
Lead evaluation
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- It does for the most part, there are parts that go into too much detail that isn't necessarily needed. For example, instead of going into detail about the bank crisis in colonial America he could just say that Hook Robert Cowan, James Callaway, and Robert Donald, met to agree to control the prices of their goods and stabilizing the local economy.
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- I don't think that "By 1773 the Bedford planters of tobacco met to set the price of tobacco thereby bypassing the merchants. This created a rift between the Hook and the other merchants and resulted in a falling out and the other merchants blaming Hook. Shortly after Hook and his current partner, Ross, agreed that Hook should start buying his goods directly instead of going through Ross to get them." Is necessary.
- I am not sure how much Hook should appear in great detail on the New London page before it would somehow warrant his own wikipedia page.
Content evaluation
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]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
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]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?
- as current as possible
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- yes
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- I think the quote can be made smaller or just summerized, it's a large block of text that doesn't have new information. Other sentences can be combined and shortend.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- very slight problems. There could be more commas and children is capitalized for no reason in "Catherine, who married Bowker Preston and had at least four Children."
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- I think there could be less sections and info. At this point this section is larger than any other part of the article.
Organization evaluation
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media. NA
- 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?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]For New Articles Only
[edit]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?
New Article Evaluation
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- I believe that it has added information that is interesting but not all of it is necessary.
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- There is a lot of interesting facts about events in New London and it gives a more vivid understanding of the time.
- How can the content added be improved?
- I think it would be best to shorten it and make it more concise. It should stay about the same length as other sections in the article, right now it is overtaking everything else.