User talk:Isabella1202
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Isabella1202, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Peer Review 3/6/20[edit]
Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info Whose work are you reviewing? Isabella1202 Link to draft you're reviewing: Karaoke box Lead
Guiding questions:
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead clearly explains the content in the article. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Clear, concise, and well explained. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The article does not include any major sections, but does a great job introducing the topic. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Nope, the lead introduces all the topics discussed. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think the lead could be shortened up a little bit. Then use the excess information to create a new category. Lead evaluation Content
Guiding questions:
Is the content added relevant to the topic? All content is relevant. Is the content added up-to-date? Content appears to be up to date. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Nope Content evaluation Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:
Is the content added neutral? Yes, there doesn't appear to be any bias or opinions Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, just facts Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not that I can tell Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Nope Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References
Guiding questions:
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The untitled article by mirror magazine seems a little fishy along with Karaoke Players Info (I could be wrong though) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes the information does appear to reflect the topic Are the sources current? "At the Mic" was written in 1998 Check a few links. Do they work? All links work Sources and references evaluation Organization
Guiding questions:
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I do see a few errors. Reference to sources should be after period at the end of the sentence. It feels like there are a few commas missing too. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article isn't much more than the lead. Organization evaluation Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (Does not apply)
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
For New Articles Only (Does not apply)
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 Overall impressions
Guiding questions:
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the additional information has helped. What are the strengths of the content added? The added content gives a better understand of what the article is about and how Karaoke Box's are used How can the content added be improved? I think the grammar and sentence structure could be altered to sound better Overall evaluation — Preceding unsigned comment added by WackoWyatt (talk • contribs) 16:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)