User:Kissinger458/Lake conway/Micheladitmore Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? User:Kissinger458
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kissinger458/Lake conway
Lead evaluation
[edit]For starters, I think the lead is well written. It's informative and provides necessary information at a glance without going too much in depth on that information. The section you talk about later are all including and nothing in it is unnecessary. There are just a few things that I would fix to make it more presentable. Delete the overview title. Technically that is your lead statement and does not need to be called overview (honestly it's not long enough to need an overview anyways). Lead statements don't need a title. However, lead statements do need their topic to be in bold. So don't forget to bold Lake Conway.
Content evaluation
[edit]The content is great. All of it is completely relevant to the topic and provides information that directly leads to Lake Conway. Not only that, the content is all presented in the lead so there are no surprises there. There are a few things that you might be able to add if you put in the time to find good sources. Such as the numerous natural disasters that occurred there in recent years (i.e. the Exxon oil spill, two F4 tornados). There's also been a rise in an alligator population that should be nonexistent, and I think Game and Fish put out a statement on that and on alligator hunting. If you are interested in adding that. Otherwise, great work. (Lake Conway is my front yard, I did not look all this up haha.)
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The tone is completely neutral. Yet, it's surprisingly not boring. Great job there. Just a really informative article about a lake that uses enough vocabulary to be interesting. There is no real viewpoints to take into account though I suppose.
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The sources are decent. A few are outdated, but I think that's forgiven because of how long ago the lake was made. Aside from that, not much news goes on besides what I listed in the content portion. However, adding those could give you more sources and more up to date sources. The links works. The only thing you need to fix is the fact that your references are listed twice, it lists them automatically for you, so you can get rid of the portion you included.
Organization evaluation
[edit]Great organization. The topics are split appropriately and effectively. The grammar and spelling appear to be on par.
New Article Evaluation
[edit]I covered everything that I would need to here in other places in my evaluation.
Overall evaluation
[edit]It was not an improvement because nothing was there before, but I do think it's a great addition. As someone who lives on Lake Conway you describe it really well. As soon as you adjust your lead and fix your references, all of the work you have in your draft will look great. There is room to add more and if you decide to I hope you take my suggestions into consideration.