User:Daisydaily24/Birkenstock/Ksmith1234 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) Daisydaily24
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Birkenstock
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]The lead of this article has not currently been updated, there is a good introductory however it has not been brought up to date. There is a description of the articles main points but not information that is missing in the article. I would say the lead is concise but again to emphasis that the lead has not been updated.
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?
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
Content evaluation
[edit]The content added is very helpful to the topic as well as up-to-date. I would say that all of the content fits however more elaboration could be added. I would not say that this is necessarily a content gap because there is already information presented however I would say that it is useful to the page.
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]The content added is neutral and not at all bias to toward a position. I would say the view points were accurately represent, I would say that the context expresses the make up of Birkenstock and why they are good for your feet.
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?
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The sources appear to be through a reliable source with high credentials, the sources appear to be educated on the topic. These sources are accurate and up tp date, there could be a more diverse spectrum perhaps with a doctors point of view or some sort of medical opinion. The links work great!
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]The content is easy to read however I feel that more statistical information could be given. I did not see any egregious grammatical errors and the organization flows very well with the topic headings.
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]There is an image of the old and new Birkenstocks however I feel that a more up to date image with better description of what is going on or being described would be very useful. The image does have a caption as to what is in the image but there could be more description as to why. The copy write is correct. The image is not visually appealing due to the bad lighting it is hard to see the quality of the shoes and detect a change.
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]This is 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?
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- How can the content added be improved?
Overall evaluation
[edit]The context added some history to the article that was missing, making the article more complete. Some major strengths being added is the facts of what makes up the soles and what Birkenstock is doing to improve the shoe over time. I would say more information on the change of the shoe over time would be great as well as a better quality image.
~~~~Ksmith1234