User:Jinie Ham/Coffee in South Korea/BarrrrbY 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?

I am reviewing Jinie Ham's work.

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jinie Ham/Coffee in South Korea
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Coffee in South Korea

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - Not yet, the leading paragraph is still the same as the original.
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - Yes, the Lead introduced coffee is a strong element in Korean culture.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - No, the Lead is a little vague so far, it would be better to mention about history of coffee, coffee shops in Korea, etc.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes, the added content "New Coffe" is relevant tot he topic.
Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, it introduces the new form of coffee in Korea.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - All the content is related to the topic. Since Jinie only added one new section, I would like to see if anything new can be added to the article. Such as the different types of coffee in Korea.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? - Yes, the content about the form of Dolgona Coffee are all facts.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No, I have not see any biased position so far.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - Since there is not much content added, I suggest adding some information about the view of coffee from different groups of people or the value of coffee.
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - The article is neutral that has no attempt to persuade people.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? -I have not seen any reference to the new content yet, it should be added before publishing the article.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - The only sources I can see are the sources from the original article, and they are reliable and reflect on the topic. However, the new content have no references.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - The sources in original articles are written by a diverse spectrum of authors, include both Western and Korean authors.
Check a few links. Do they work? - Yes.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes, the content that introduce Dolgona Coffee is clear and logical.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - There are some errors of punctuations: "In South Korea, if you get a positive result for COVID (,) you have to be quarantined for 14 days"; Due to the pandemic situation, (this comma should be deleted) and lockdown of the cities and countries; (should change to a comma instead of semicolon)people had to spend lots of time at home and reduce time being outside."
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, each sections are well-organized and classified. I would suggest that if Dolgona Coffee the only new coffee in Korea? If not, maybe adding some information about other kinds of coffee would make the content more complete.

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - Not images added yet. I suggest to add some images of coffee shops that mentioned in article, as well as the image of Dolgona Coffee.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - I think the article is more complete by adding information about new coffee in Korea.
What are the strengths of the content added? - The article mainly talks about the history of coffee in Korea, therefore adding "New Coffee" shows the development of coffee.
How can the content added be improved? - The added content needs reference. The information about coffee shops in Korea is too simple, it would be better to add more information about those shops to make the article more complete.