User:Coleencompton/Autism Spectrum/Alima2407 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? Coleencompton
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Autism spectrum
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]It has been updated with good resource and valid information. The lead includes the a description and information that was not once in the article. The lead was long but I believe it had all the essential parts to it. It was a bit difficult to figure what was added by the peer but the information they did add was important.
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]It would seem that the information added what related to the content. It seems to be up-to-date and there is not a lot of missing content to the topic.
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]It would seem that the content seems to be neutral and fact base. The information does not give a sense of personal opinion but evidence base ideas. I think that there are viewpoints that are more presented than others but that can be due to the knowledge at hand that is available. I do not find the content bias or causing readers to favor a certain position.
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]Yes the sources and references were great. Links work when clicked and the related to the information that was written.
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 believe the information was well written and clear to understand. It was detailed but I believe in talking about a disorder such as ASD detail is needed to fully understand the complexity of the disorder.
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 article does include an image and its a example of a certain behaviour that ASD display. The caption explain well what the image was referring too and I believe they followed Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
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]N/A
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]The article had a lot of great information about ASD. There were many sections to include to break down the disorder. The information added from my peer gave the article more concrete evidence in terms of statistics of the disorder. There are certain areas that do need more information added. I think it can be easy to find the common ideas but to add value to an article we need to look at where the holes are and fill them so that the information is fluid.