User:Melancosmic/Manchester State Park (Washington)/JLR02 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?

Melancosmic

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Melancosmic/Manchester State Park (Washington)
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Manchester State Park (Washington)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead - You have added enough content to the article that having a lead now makes sense. It's a concise summary that includes key facts about the park itself and enough history to understand why the park is relevant/notable to Manchester as a community. The only thing I noticed is that you have some history statements that are not attached to any source. These might be covered by sources in the body of the article, or you might be able to find one or two more sources that summarize the history of the park. Overall, though, the lead is a good introduction to the article!

Content - All the new content has an appropriate tone and is relevant. You cover quite a bit of history in a concise, understandable way and use reliable sources - I grew up in Manchester and this answered several questions I've had for a while, which is a good indication to me that the information you have added is good! The only thing that might be missing is a summary of the park's history from 1970-today. I don't think there's quite as much content to cover since it isn't a military base anymore, but a short paragraph about more recent happenings could help the article feel more well-rounded. Similarly, the "activities and amenities" section is a good thing to add to the article, but it feels a little unbalanced being so short. I know the park hosts summer camps, research projects, etc - things like this could be something to add to flesh out that section a bit?

Tone/Balance - The tone of the article is appropriately neutral. I don't have a ton of feedback here - everything looks good and doesn't try to persuade readers to any particular ideas.

Sources/References - I'm honestly kind of impressed you found this many good sources about the park! I have tried to do casual research on it before and haven't seemed to come up with much. Everything you have is solid, but I noticed a lot of your links are to the WA Parks Foundation - that's not bad, but a little more diversity might help you round out your info with things other than historical facts. Newspapers like the Kitsap Sun, Port Orchard Independent, etc would be a good place to start. That's just to add more info though - everything you already have is good!

Organization - I like how you've expanded on the one-paragraph stub to add real sections. Like I mentioned before, the sections feel a little unbalanced right now with the "History" one being much longer. I think this makes sense considering the topics, but adding a bit more to the Activities/current park use section would perhaps even it out a bit. As far as the writing, everything looks good to me overall. I made a couple of copy-edits to make things more clear/concise, but didn't any issues regarding the actual content of the article. Nice work!

Images - No issues here. Your images (which you appear to have taken yourself? Impressive if you just had these on hand, or if you managed to travel to Manchester for them recently) depict places you mention in the article and illustrate key points well.

Overall - Great job expanding and improving this article! You've taken it from a one-paragraph stub to a solid small article about a local landmark. The text you have added already is concise and relevant in describing the topic. I think you can continue to improve it by adding a little more content regarding recent history and current use, but you are definitely on the right track here. Keep it up!