User:DKitch21/PLCG1/Wickypears 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?
- DKitch21
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- yes
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- yes, it includes changes that she will make
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- yes
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- yes, the cancer section that is added is specifically good
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- it is concise and information that is added is relevant.
Lead evaluation
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- yes
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- yes, resources used are current
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- no
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- no, NA
Content evaluation
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- yes her tone is good. anything I found to be non-neutral is added on her talk page.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- no, no biases are shown
- 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, unbiased
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- yes citation are good and clear
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- yes, good job. Lots of review articles.
- Are the sources current?
- yes
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? NA
- Check a few links. Do they work? yes, good links
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- yes, it is not heavy on modifiers
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- no, any errors have been corrected or are mentioned on my talk page
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- yes, improves overall organization very well.
Organization evaluation
[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, I love the added image
- Are images well-captioned?
- yes
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- yes, they are created by the author
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- yes, it is added at a good point and adds a lot.
Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- yes, increased the quality a ton
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- the strengths are the graphic lays out the purpose of PLCgamma in a very clear way. I also think that the cancer section adds a lot.
- How can the content added be improved?
- Some of the language is heavy on research specific language which I addressed in my comments on the sandbox talk page.