Jump to content

User:Amdoubleu/Baby Be-Bop/Kerrymonique 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?
    • The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by the author.
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
    • If a reader should find this page, I believe the lead is concise enough for them to understand that Baby Be-Bop is another book developed in the series of adventures.
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
    • The table of contents could be expanded upon however it is enough for the reader to scroll through and get to the important sections.
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
    • The lead includes the necessary information.
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • The lead is concise

Lead evaluation

[edit]

Content

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic? The articles content is relevant to the authors description of the story.
  • Is the content added up-to-date? The content does seem up to date
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do see some sections that could be expanded upon. The first sentence in the plot where Dirk McDonald is introduced. I think the author could add more information on Dirks background. The rest of the plot looks good!

Content evaluation

[edit]

Tone and Balance

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral?
    • The article seems neutral and unbiased about the character and his life.
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • In the plot it looks like the author gave his opinion on Dirk not being happy because he had a secret. That could appear to the reader as being a little bias. I'm not sure that it is completely bias though
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
    • The view points are not over or underrepresented.
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
    • When reading this article I am presented with more facts rather than opinions

Tone and balance evaluation

[edit]

Sources and References

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • The sources are all reliable
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
    • The sources reflect what the author is presenting about the books story line
  • Are the sources current?
    • Most of the sources are retrieved recently 2020 an up to date. There are only two dates that are from 2009.
  • Check a few links. Do they work? All the links work well

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? The content is clearly written and touches on many different dimensions such as; challenges the book had with publishing
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not find any grammatical spelling errors and paragraphs seem to flow.
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is organized well and the sections are in the right areas on the page.

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? The article has a nice picture of the books cover. It is colorful and pops out at the viewer
  • Are images well-captioned? The images are well-captioned and bolded appropriately
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I'm not sure because when I clicked on the picture it states that it is believed to belong to the publisher or the cover artist.
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The image is appealing and colorful

Images and media evaluation

[edit]

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? The article is rated a C which is considered a low standard. So, I believe it meets the standard, however for the purpose of this assignment it meets the purpose of evaluation.
  • How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I believe the author did a thorough job finding sources.
  • 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? The article flows well, has neutrality and is balance but there is room for improvement.
  • Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? The writer did a good job linking words to other articles.
  • New Article Evaluation

Overall impressions

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content that was added made a big improvement from the older version. As mentioned more content should be added, pictures and headings.
  • What are the strengths of the content added? The author made the article a lot more interesting by going deep into the history of the lawsuit, issues with publishing, and the history of the books first public display.
  • How can the content added be improved? I would like to see a few more pictures (the imaginary settings) expand more on the plot and add some reviews as a link. Otherwise the article's picture is eye catching and the new improvements look great!

Overall evaluation

[edit]