User:Jaylenreed/Lake Athens/Marythemuffinlady Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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 for 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?

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Jaylenreed

Link to draft you're reviewing: Editing User:Jaylenreed/Lake Athens - Wikipedia
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Lake Athens - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The sandbox draft does not appear to have a completed lead section; however, it may be due to lack of current article information transferred to sandbox draft.

Maximum depth could be transferred to a hydrology section if there is more information about the lake's hydrology (i.e. tributaries, dam information, flow, etc.) on website references.
Lead is concise, but missing descriptions of new subsections included in article.

Content

History: "Lake Athens Dam has a length of 3,000 feet and a maximum height of 67 feet. The drainage area contained by the dam is 21.6 square miles. Lake Athens was built for recreation, flood control, and water supply."
- These sentences can be moved to a subsection called Uses & labeled as Water Supply; this is where you can describe the dimensions of the dam (may encompass flood control as well if you describe more spillway dimensions etc.).
Wildlife: May want to add links to animal species and state whether they are native, invasive, nuisance, etc. Also, need to add references to species information to validate that they are actually found there.
- Links and references also needed for recreational fishing species.
Plants: Links and references are needed for plant species found at lake.
- There are some slight spelling/grammatical errors in this section.
- When you say district, do you mean ecoregion? If so, this could be expanded into its own section and have added information about ecoregion and soil, plants, etc. relative to that ecoregion/subregion. [If you google ecoregions of Texas, you can find your area on a map & it links to an online book with lots of information on the particular subregion your lake is in].
Invasives: You state there are many invasive species found at lake, but then go on to talk about other invasive species; is this due to some previously stated on article? If not, you may want to edit wording of these sentences.
- Links and references are needed in this section as well.
- Were there any management plans enacted for these invasive species, such as hydrilla?

Tone and Balance

The tone of the article is neutral. All good in this department.

Organization

Mostly organized very well, just need to add more subsections for clarity of individual topics. Slight grammatical errors (which are distinguished within the content section above). Overall writing is adequate and understandable.

Images and Media

There are no images, but it is difficult to find these on wikipedia commons for less popular lakes like these. So, all good in that department as well.