User:Annikahille/ASUW Shell House/Mnqly14 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? Annikahille
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Annikahille/ASUW Shell House

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?

Lead evaluation

One thing I immediately noticed about the Lead is that is does a great job of reflecting the organization of the whole article. As a reader, it gave me a glimpse of what to expect in the article without revealing too much. Additionally, I thought the pieces of information that you chose to include in the Lead were very thoughtful and carefully selected.

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?

Content evaluation

Each section of the article appears to contain relevant content that is also up-to-date. I am unfamiliar with the history of the ASUW Shellhouse, so I'm not sure if anything is missing, but the all current information seem to belong in the article.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

Most of the information provided in the article are facts and/or events. Given this, the overall tone of the article is pretty neutral. The article reports the changes and happenings of the Shellhouse in a very matter-of-fact manner, which does not leave room for bias or opinions.

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?

Sources and references evaluation

The information in the article appears to be backed up by reliable sources. I noticed that a couple links led to the UW website or an affiliated page, which may not be considered a neutral party. However, given what is included in the article, it doesn't seem like the use of such sources influenced the neutrality of the content.

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?

Organization evaluation

The article is concise and easy to read. Based on what is presented in the Lead, the organization of the rest of the article flows well. I felt like some sections ended rather abruptly, but they may be because no other information was pertinent to the topic. As a reader, however, it made certain parts of the article seem disconnected.

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?

Images and media evaluation

The article does include one image of the Shellhouse, which I found useful, but I would recommend a caption. If it's possible to find pictures of the Shellhouse in its various stages (that adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations) throughout the years, I think that would be a great addition.

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?
• 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?

New Article Evaluation

In terms of Notability, I am not sure if I would consider this topic as meeting the Wikipedia guidelines. The list of sources also include a couple links to the UW website, which I don't consider independent of the subject. The sources provided, however, have relevant and accurate information so I consider them to be useful for the article. Lastly, the article does in fact follow the patterns of similar articles, and it contains well-thought out section headings, subheadings, etc.

This article does link to other articles multiple times through the text, so that will definitely help with making it 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?

Overall evaluation

I think the this article has a lot of strengths, starting with the Lead. With that being the first thing that users see, it's important to have a strong introduction. I appreciated the fact that the article covers the history of the Shellhouse up to future plans that are set for 2021. It sets up the article to be further updated in the future and continuously improved. If more information can be found regarding the subjects of each subheading, I would recommend adding more content to those section to help the article flow better from one (sub)topic to the next. I think that would help the overall cohesion of the article. Because the Shellhouse has undergone many changes in the use and structure, having this article reflect those changes would be beneficial. This could be done with the addition of a couple more pictures, and proper captions.