User:Cation2020/Jane S. Richardson/Blacksheep109 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.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
- Cation2020
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- More details on the persona and a better introduction.
- 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, think about highlighting the main point of each section in intro.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Yes
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- I do not think it is overly detailed, but I would consider reorganizing the sentences to make it flow a little better.
Lead evaluation
[edit]I thought all of the content was good, but I would consider rearranging it. I thought it was hard to read and the flow was not the best.
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- I think it clears up the flow in some sections.
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- No
Content evaluation
[edit]I think your initial edits are looking good and helping with the flow.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes, I think by adding the last name in place of she made it less bias.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]I think these contributions are helping with the flow and overall make the article clearer and overall better.
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Unsure
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Very
- Are the sources current?
- Yes, good range of dates from current to past.
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]They all appear to be true.
Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Some part, some could flow better.
- 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 and redefining the sections was very helpful.
Organization evaluation
[edit]Well organized and good flow
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?
- None
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- No images
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Still no images
Images and media evaluation
[edit]Images may be added later.
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
[edit]Not a new article.
Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- Yes
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- Make the flow clearer
- How can the content added be improved?
- Unsure of what exactly was added, but the flow seems a lot better
Overall evaluation
[edit]I thought this was a great revision and made the article clearer.
Peer Review Response
[edit]@Blacksheep109: Thank you for your peer review! I intend to blend what I've written with the original article and will be conscious of flow. I will also review my lead and try to highlight the main point of each section like you suggested.