Jump to content

User:MArtin9712/Mahua (snack)/Mnqly14 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?
  • 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?

Lead evaluation[edit]

Compared to the original article, this Lead is definitely more concise. However, I don't think it properly describes the articles major sections.

Content[edit]

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?

Content evaluation[edit]

The content seems to be relevant as the various sections discuss Mahua in different regions. I think that offers the reader with a better understanding of the popularity and culture behind this snack food. I did find each section to be quite brief, so I'm curious to know if there is more information that could be added.

Tone and Balance[edit]

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?

Tone and balance evaluation[edit]

I found the article to be fairly neutral and didn't pick up on a tone that attempted to sway the reader in any way.

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Are the sources current?
  • Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation[edit]

The sources are pretty current, but I noticed that most of them of appear to be blog posts. Given the topic, I am not sure of the type of literature that is out there to reflect on.

Organization[edit]

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?

Organization evaluation[edit]

Each individual section is very clear and easy to read, however the organization of the overall article could be presented in a better way. I think the subheadings could be revised to better reveal to the reader what they could expect from each section.

Images and Media[edit]

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?

Images and media evaluation[edit]

I would have liked to see more pictures included in the article. On one of the sources used, I noticed that it included pictures of the various steps in making Mahua and I though that would have been a valuable edition to this specific article.

For New Articles Only[edit]

If the draft you're reviewing is 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?

New Article Evaluation[edit]

Overall impressions[edit]

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?

Overall evaluation[edit]

I think this article is on the right track. It greatly improved the Lead by giving readers a sense of what Mahua is without overwhelming them too much. I appreciated the clarity of each sections and the inclusion of pertinent information. I felt like I was being informed rather than convinced to believe to anything, and that neutrality is always an important feature to have for your article. Again, I would have preferred more pictures because I think they could have offered more to the article, and potentially translate to more written content, but the one photo was still a great addition.