User:Ems1960/Nitro cold brew coffee/Benjamin Charles Baird Peer Review

Peer review

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
  • Ems1960
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:Ems1960/Nitro cold brew coffee

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, could use perhaps a little bit more base description
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • No
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • Concise

Lead evaluation

Lead is clear and concise. Perhaps briefly touching on sections would be beneficial.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • No
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • No

Content evaluation

Content is solid and relevant

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes
• 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

Tone remains neutral and unbiased

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes

Sources and references evaluation

Good use of diverse sources. Does a good job eliminating bias from sources and presents factual information

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes
• 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

Organization evaluation

Organization is neat and easy to follow

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Yes
• Are images well-captioned?
  • Yes
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes

Images and media evaluation

Image used is clear and gives reader a good visual

Overall impressions

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?
  • The content is relevant and easy to understand
• How can the content added be improved?
  • Perhaps the addition of a section detailing major coffee producers who offer nitro cold brews

Overall evaluation

The article does a great job of introducing what a nitro cold brew coffee is and provides useful insight into its production and history