User:Bacarellam1/Literacy in the New Media Age by Gunther Kress/Water King's Falcon Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

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?

Content

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?

Tone and Balance

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
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?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

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?

Images and Media

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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Bacarellam1

Link to draft you're reviewing: Literacy in the New Media Age by Gunther Kress

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

The lead was entirely developed by Bacarellam1.
The introductory sentence is concise and accurate on the topic.
The lead does not describe the major sections of the article though it contains information later addressed.
The information included in the lead is included in the main body of the article.
The lead is very concise as well as informational.

Content

The content is relevant to the topic as it's the description of the contents of the book by Kress.
The content is up-to-date.
The article is missing content such as reception, other related works, and possibly notable citations.
The potential to discuss equity gap is there in the History and Future of Literacy section in terms of literacy having been not accessible to being accessible to marginalized groups but has yet to be written.

Tone and Balance

The content is neutral and factual in nature.
There are claims in the article but the claims are ones made in the book and are a representation of its contents.
The Shifting of the Medium section seems more heavily developed than the other sections.
There is no attempt at persuasion in this article.

Sources and References

A lot of the information needs citation still even if it's redundant, there's a lot of uncited information.
The information from the sources is accurately reflected where cited.
The references reflect the available literature on the book and its subject matter.
The sources are current and from the 00's.
The authors of the references are varied and represent marginalized group with authors from Spain and Singapore.
Bacarellam1 seems to have found the best sources available for this book.
Only 2 out of the 5 links are currently able to be followed.

Organization

The content is well written, concise, and clear.
There are a couple of missed words and grammatical errors.
Of the content added the sections make sense as a reflection of the contents of the book.

Images and Media

There are no images or media added.

New Article

The article has at least 4 notable secondary, independent sources on the book.
The reference list is not extensive but does cover most of what is currently written on the subject.
The article is pretty straightforward in terms of article pattern, the only I might add is a chapter overview.
The article does not currently link to other articles, my recommendation would be to link it to the wiki page on the author.

Overall Impressions

The content added contributes significantly to the articles development and the now available information.
The strengths of the content added is the neutral tone and accurate reflection of the contents of the articles referenced.
The content added can be improved by being cited more, by the sections being reflected in the lead, and by adding another section "Reception" on how the book was experienced by readers and other academics in the field and possible rejections on the contents of the book.