User:Angelacgeorge/Loving Her/Jenni.mesa1023 Peer Review
Appearance
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]
- Whose work are you reviewing? Angelacgeorge
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Angelacgeorge/Loving Her
Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? All of it is original content
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
- 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? Again, all original work
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's good and original
Lead evaluation[edit]
Content[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, because it is original work
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, because it is a new article
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The article isn't completed yet, but when it is, it should be fine.
Content evaluation[edit]
Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yup
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Nope
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Nope; it focuses mostly on the black lesbian genre because that is what the novel is about.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No
Tone and balance evaluation[edit]
Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Hasn't done this yet
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Hasn't done this yet
- Are the sources current? Hasn't done this yet
- Check a few links. Do they work? No links yet
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? Yes, but incomplete
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not particularly
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes
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? No
- Are images well-captioned? There are no pictures
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? There are no pictures
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There are no pictures
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? She hasn't posted sources yet.
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? She hasn't posted sources yet.
- 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? She hasn't posted sources yet.
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? She hasn't posted sources yet.
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? It's good!
- What are the strengths of the content added? It's a brand new article, so it's way better than before
- How can the content added be improved? Just having the addition of sources would make everything better
Overall evaluation[edit]
It's very good so far. You just need to add your sources and talk about some of the themes of the books. Maybe some reviews as well.