Jump to content

User:MArtin9712/Mahua (snack)/Maggiehoang 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?
    • Yes. It has been updated and seems to be more refined than the original article.
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
    • It does by describing what the snack is with wiki links for more information about the other ingredients.
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
    • It does give us a good overview about what the article will be able.
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
    • No. The information in the lead looks relevant.
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • It is concise. It is a good length to inform us about the snack.

Lead evaluation[edit]

Content[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic?
    • Yes. The article is broken down nicely with the content, easier to read.
  • Is the content added up-to-date?
    • Yes. The content is new added by the editor.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • No. They all are relevant.

Content evaluation[edit]

Tone and Balance[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral?
    • I think the content added is neutral. There aren't any convincing wording. It is mostly information about the snack.
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • No. I don't notice any biases.
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
    • No. The content is closely distributed. It has a good amount of information.
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
    • No. There are no convincing sides.

Tone and balance evaluation[edit]

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • Yes. There are some reliable sources, but some are blogs (not sure about how reliable they are, but they are written in a neutral tone)/
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
    • Yes. They give us more insight on this snack.
  • Are the sources current?
    • Yes. I noticed it is all within the last 10 years.
  • Check a few links. Do they work?
    • #3 does not link to the article but to the homepage.

Sources and references evaluation[edit]

Organization[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
    • I think it is concise and clear. The way you broke down the old lead into content was a good idea.
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
    • I did not notice any.
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
    • Yes. Broken down very nicely instead of a paragraph of information.

Organization evaluation[edit]

Images and Media[edit]

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?
    • It is.
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
    • Yes. It looks like it was from wiki
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
    • Yes. The one image has the information with origin which is helpful.