User:Caroruguita/Animal sanctuary/Rbatista18 Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
*Evaluation Scale: Poor, Good, Excellent
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) - User: Caroruguita
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Caroruguita/Animal sanctuary
- Link to article: Animal sanctuary
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - My peer has yet to include 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? - No.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - No.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - Very concise. The lead presents a quick overview of the topic.
Lead evaluation - Good
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes.
- Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - The article has substantial room for more details and examples.
Content evaluation - Poor
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? - Some phrases are subjective.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - An opposing viewpoint to animal sanctuaries is not represented.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - No.
Tone and balance evaluation - Good
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - No.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - The number of sources reflects the article's length.
- Are the sources current? - Yes.
- Check a few links. Do they work? - Yes.
Sources and references evaluation - Good
[edit]Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - No.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes.
Organization evaluation - Excellent
[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? - Yes.
- Are images well-captioned? - Yes.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? - Yes.
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? - Yes.