User:Acho98/Bite of Seattle/Eric1997uw Peer Review

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? (provide username)
  • Acho98
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:Acho98/Bite of Seattle

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • The lead has been updated and reflects all the relevant points of the topic.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes the introductory sentence contains the what and the where of the event.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Yes.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No, all lead information is expanded on later.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • Concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, all information is relevant.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes, all content is up to date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • Currently no information under the "Food & Drinks" section.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Content added is neutral and comes from neutral citations.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No areas are high debatable and no content leans towards any side.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No bias.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No persuading content.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes, however sources are not yet cited/linked.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Sources look to be reliable and thorough.
• Are the sources current?
  • Sources all seem to be current.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • No links have been inserted at this time.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Content is well written.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • Not upon first read.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Content is well organized.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Contains one image of crowd.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • Image is well captioned. (Crowds at Bite of Seattle)
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Yes.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes.

For New Articles Only

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?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • Content added has improved the article.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • Clear and concise information that is relevant to the topic.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • Expand on low content sections and look into any other available images (if there are any).

Overall evaluation

Good job!