User:Lmc99/Moonlight Basin/Jeffdnguyen921 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?

Lmc99

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lmc99/sandbox/Moonlight Basin Current
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Moonlight Basin

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead[edit]

Great job on the lead shrinking it down and only providing necessary information. I really like how short and how concise it is, it leads well into the rest of the article. One suggestion for the lead would be to introduce some of the next sections you will be talking about.

Content[edit]

The content added really did highlight relevant information and helped organize everything very uniquely and made it much more readible relative to the original draft. I am not familiar with the topic itself but I think having information revolving geography would be interesting.

Tone[edit]

Everything was very content neutral and helped present the facts in a very accordingly. Overall I think you do a great job at telling the history without much bias.

Sources and References[edit]

In terms of the references, many of the articles came from news articles and those are good for this project. Overall, the references are well chosen and I feel have merits in the article as a whole. Overall the additional information sources help add more information to the given article. Obviously some sources would be better but I think with the topic it would be harder to find better sources unless there was a scholarly article on the topic.

Organization[edit]

Great job reorganizing the article and making it more visually appealing with the helpful headers. Overall you did a great job in making the article much better looking for the audience and helping the reader so much.

Images[edit]

I think that more images revolving the area would be an interesting addition in the future which would help make the article better and bring out certain points brought up in the new editions of the articles.

Final notes[edit]

I think the article is so much better than the original one. I think a little more information regarding the geography and other unique facts on the site would be interesting. Obviously including more images would help the most and overall would make the article so much better.