User:Chrisuw/Ben Thanh Market/Kensu.bates 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? (Chrisuw)
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Chrisuw/Ben Thanh Market
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
[edit]Your lead seems like it is updated, it is concise, and it doesn't include information that is not present in the article.
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?
Content evaluation
[edit]Your content added to your article is relevant to your topic and it is up-to-date. I think that all of your main content is good and belongs to your article.
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
[edit]I think that your content is neutral. It doesn't seem like there are any claims that appear heavily biased. It doesn't seem like you're over-representing a viewpoint.
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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Your links work and are current. The sources that you have look thorough and reflects the topic of what your topic is. It seems like most of your content is backed up by reliable sources.
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
[edit]I like how you were able to be concise and to the point. I see that you have a comment at the top of your page that says add to history section and I think that would be good. Also I think that it would flow better if the history section was moved up, so that the reader can have knowledge of wha they're reading about.
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]The images reflect what you're topic is but I think it would be good to spread them apart and see where it would be best fitted. Maybe add a little more to the captions.
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?
Overall evaluation
[edit]Overall evaluation is that it looks like you're going in the right direction just some organizational changes could help and then adding a little more to the history could help.