User:Zealora/Amaterasu/Miles at UofU 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) Zealora
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Zealora/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I think this would be a great thing to look into editing along with your planned edits and additions to the article. The article lead honestly might not need to be changed, but that may depend on how much new information you think you will be adding overall.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, everything appears relevant to the article
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There already appears to be a lot content, so I don't know of anything that may be missing or out of place. It may just depend on where you are planning to add in the edits into the article.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes, the tone appears very neutral to me.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work? Each of the links appear to be only accessible through logging in to Ebsco host. So I assume that they are good sources, but you will want to figure out links that anyone can use. I think Textor Sensei talked about how before, so I would recommend asking her about that.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, may even be able to expand a little more.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I am terrible at grammar, but there is nothing wrong that sticks out to me.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I can't tell where these edits will be added into the article. Organizing your edits directly with written sections from the article may be helpful.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall it looks like the edits are well written in a neutral way. I am not sure how much these edits will contribute to the article overall. If you don't think it is enough, then look into expanding more of the sections you have already written.