User:Mollyantfarm111/Croatan/Skitlizard 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? Mollyantfarm111
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mollyantfarm111/Croatan

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • The lead does include what was added.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Indeed it does
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The lead is missing this section in part. It doesn't give what is to come, but instead gives a brief summary.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • It includes things that would be better off in another section of the article, such as the comment about Roanoke.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • It is almost too concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • The content is somewhat relevant. The first paragraph is most relevant, and gets less relevant from there.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • The second and third added paragraphs don't seem to belong all that well.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • The content is rather neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • The third added paragraph seems to hold some sass.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • All the pertinent viewpoints seem to be represented.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • the added content is very factual and not very persuasive.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Indeed, but more sources are needed for the amount of information provided.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • yes
• Are the sources current?
  • yes
• 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?
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• 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?

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?
  • yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
  • There could be some more sources that give some more background information.
• 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?
  • The article contains all of these.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
  • yes it does

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • the article is more complete.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The strengths are that it adds to the overall knowledge of the topic in a clear concise manner.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • The content can be improved with grammar revisions and more sources.

Overall evaluation

Overall, the article holds many impartial facts about the Croatan people, but it needs a few more sources and some grammatical edits. Also, try explaining that "indian" is a term the Croatan people chose for themselves earlier on as now people call them Native Americans.