User:Epichippo/Shadoof/MightyFiveEleven 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[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Epichippo

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Epichippo/Shadoof
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Shadoof

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Lead Section[edit]

The article lead is greatly expanded from its original version and provides an overview of the mechanism of the device itself and its importance to agriculture. The mechanistic explanation of the shadoof might be too in-depth for a lead section, and could probably be slimmed down while still retaining key information about the subject; the line in the first part of the lead about the origins of the shadoof might also work better at the beginning of the last part talking about the device's impact.

Clarity of Structure[edit]

The order of sections (Lead/History/Design, Function, and Efficiency/Social Effects and Technological Impact/Names/Gallery of Shadoofs around the World/In Heraldry) mostly makes sense, though some sections could probably be rearranged or combined for better flow of the article:

Switching the order of the "History" and "Design, Function and Efficiency" sections would better match the suggested revision to the lead section noted above
The "In Heraldry" section might work better as a subsection of the "Social Effects and Technological Impact" section; the four coats of arms might be able to fit into a single image box using this template.

Additionally, the names of the "Design, Function and Efficiency" and "Social Effects and Technological Impact" sections are very long and could probably be shortened.

Coverage Balance[edit]

The expansion of the article's content has resulted in a number of passages with confusing or redundant verbiage that give the impression of the article being padded out; like the article lead, some of these could probably be slimmed down and still retain their key message. The article draft otherwise does a good job covering its bases.

Content Neutrality[edit]

The article draft is written from a neutral point of view and does not appear to have any overall ideological slant.

Sources[edit]

The number of references of the draft article is over double that of the main article, but few of the additions come from scholarly or peer-reviewed sources and appear to be of questionable reliability. One of the sources (Mirti et al., 1999) appears three times in the bibliography.

Conclusion[edit]

You have the makings of a solid article here, but you should probably spend some time revising the wording of your passages and looking for more scholarly sources; as it is now, some parts of the article feel unnecessarily padded out. Good luck with your editing!

MightyFiveEleven (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)