User:AubrieDaVall/Debbie Sterling/AubrieDaVall Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]- I like the lead section, it really sets up the rest of the article well. The amount of information is really good, almost everything has sources which is great. Your sources look like I really like how much information you put on her specific career steps to get where she is today, and how you give equal emphasis to all of it.
- There is not too much I would change, I would consider making an awards section for her seeing as she and her creation have a notable amount of awards. Another thing is possibly adding the things that were mentioned about her education in the biography section to the education section, and combining the personal life and early life sections into the biography. Another thing is to change the flow of the career section, some of it is slightly stilted.
- I think the most important thing to do which would help with flow and continuity would be to reorganize some of your information. In all the article is really clear and neutral with only very small details that could be changed.
- One thing that I think my group could learn from yours is the structure of the lead. I think that you introduced the rest of the article really well with it, providing a lot of information to explain what she’s known for, I think that my group could learn from that and structure our lead section better.
- I didn’t edit too much, most of what I did was adding or taking away from a couple sentences to help with the flow.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? (C.Suaste)
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:C.suaste/sandbox
Lead
[edit]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?
Lead evaluation: The Lead is very good, it lays out the information that is expanded on in the rest of the article well.
[edit]Content
[edit]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?
Content evaluation: The content is very relevant, with recent up to date sources. The article deals with the gap in representation of women in technology.
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]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?
Tone and balance evaluation: The content is quite neutral, viewpoints are mostly equally represented.
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- 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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation: The sources are reliable and up to date with many articles written during the past few years. The links work.
[edit]Organization
[edit]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?
Organization evaluation: Organization is mostly good, there are some sections that could be combined and information that could be in a different sections.
[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?
- 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
[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?
- 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: The article fits the notability requirements with many reliable sources cited. It follows the pattern of similar articles and links to other articles.
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]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?