User:Piesu123/Lake Nasser/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:Piesu123

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Piesu123/Lake Nasser
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Lake Nasser

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Lead Section[edit]

The lead section of the draft is unaltered from that of the existing article and the editor has noted as such. In its current form the lead offers a brief introduction to the topic and some historical background related to the "Current Issues" section, but does not offer information regarding tourism in the area; the editor is working to expand/reorganize these sections in their draft and the final version of the lead should touch upon each of these areas once they are complete.

Clarity of Structure[edit]

The order of sections presented in the draft (Lead/Description/History/Economy/Future concerns) makes logical sense and the consolidation/reworking of the "Current Issues" section of the main article into the "Future concerns" section at the end of the article is a smart move.

Coverage Balance[edit]

The "Description" section of the draft is unaltered from that of the existing article while the "History" section is currently under expansion; the "Controversies" subsection looks nearly complete and offers a good overview of opposition to the construction of the Aswan High Dam and resultant creation of Lake Nasser, which the main "History" section will hopefully counterbalance in the final draft. The "Economy" and "Future concerns" sections of the article may need some further expansion, but already provide more information than the main Lake Nasser article, and the editor has already noted that work is underway on these.

Content Neutrality[edit]

The editor has done a good job of maintaining an overall neutral point of view on the subject, and the content of the article does not take any firm ideological stance. The current wording of the "Future concerns" section, however, feels somewhat sensationalized and could be revised to convey the same information in a somewhat less alarmist tone.

Sources[edit]

The editor has shown diligence in removing subpar sources from the main article in the course of drafting and replacing them with more appropriate scholarly and peer-reviewed sources. As of now, most subsections in the article are supported by at least a single citation, though this will probably change as the article moves towards its final draft.

Conclusion[edit]

You have a solid article taking shape here and a good roadmap of where it can be expanded and/or improved! Keep an eye on the tone/phrasing of new sections as you add them and keep expanding your list of sources and you should be all set. Good work!

MightyFiveEleven (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)