User:Warriors2020/Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site/Historian107 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) Warriors2020
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, there is a lot of information in the lead.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it sets but the rest of the article well.
• 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, they keep it relavant.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, they address how the sit became historic.
• 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, it is facts only.
• 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 it does not it is too the point.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I'm not sure, but they do have a good amount of sources
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
• Are the sources current? Some of them are a little bit older.
• Check a few links. Do they work? They work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is easy to read.
• 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, I like how it is broken down.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? It has a few images, which I think work well due to the nature of the article.
• Are images well-captioned? Yes.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

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? I'm not sure.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes.
• 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? I think there could be maybe one or two more sections. Maybe something more about her life.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I feel like the article is in pretty good shape.
• What are the strengths of the content added? I think it has a lot of good information.
• How can the content added be improved? Maybe just adding another section about her life. Also finding more updated articles.