Jump to content

User:Cation2020/Jane S. Richardson/Blacksheep109 Peer Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review

[edit]

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

[edit]

Lead

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
    • More details on the persona and a better introduction.
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
    • Yes
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
    • No, think about highlighting the main point of each section in intro.
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
    • Yes
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • I do not think it is overly detailed, but I would consider reorganizing the sentences to make it flow a little better.

Lead evaluation

[edit]

I thought all of the content was good, but I would consider rearranging it. I thought it was hard to read and the flow was not the best.

Content

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic?
    • I think it clears up the flow in some sections.
  • Is the content added up-to-date?
    • Yes
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • No

Content evaluation

[edit]

I think your initial edits are looking good and helping with the flow.

Tone and Balance

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral?
    • Yes, I think by adding the last name in place of she made it less bias.
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • No
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
    • No
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
    • No

Tone and balance evaluation

[edit]

I think these contributions are helping with the flow and overall make the article clearer and overall better.

Sources and References

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • Unsure
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
    • Very
  • Are the sources current?
    • Yes, good range of dates from current to past.
  • Check a few links. Do they work?
    • Yes

Sources and references evaluation

[edit]

They all appear to be true.

Organization

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
    • Some part, some could flow better.
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
    • No
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
    • Yes and redefining the sections was very helpful.

Organization evaluation

[edit]

Well organized and good flow

Images and Media

[edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

  • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
    • No
  • Are images well-captioned?
    • None
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
    • No images
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
    • Still no images

Images and media evaluation

[edit]

Images may be added later.

For New Articles Only

[edit]

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

[edit]

Not a new article.

Overall impressions

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
    • Yes
  • What are the strengths of the content added?
    • Make the flow clearer
  • How can the content added be improved?
    • Unsure of what exactly was added, but the flow seems a lot better

Overall evaluation

[edit]

I thought this was a great revision and made the article clearer.

Peer Review Response

[edit]

@Blacksheep109: Thank you for your peer review! I intend to blend what I've written with the original article and will be conscious of flow. I will also review my lead and try to highlight the main point of each section like you suggested.