User:Dawson Thornburgh/Machiavellianism (psychology)/Sarahamc0714 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

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?

Content

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?

Tone and Balance

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
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?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

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?

Images and Media

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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

Overall impressions

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Dawson Thornburgh

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Dawson Thornburgh/Machiavellianism (psychology)
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Machiavellianism (psychology)

Evaluate the drafted changes

The lead section for the original article is very concise, but I think some edits to it could increase its overall quality. A suggestion I can give to you when you begin the edits for that section is to make some minor edits to grammar and minor edits to sentence structure. I think this could be beneficial to consider for that section to aid in the readability of it. Regarding your current draft, I think the content on age correlation that you have added is very informative and provides a deeper understanding of the development of this personality trait. After reviewing the original article, I noticed there is a section that speaks about research performed with children. So, I would either suggest adding this information to that section or completely replacing it all together. Your tone in this section appeared very neutral and informative to me, so keep up the good work with that! I will echo the instructor's suggestion about condensing the first two sentences into one to ensure easy readability and understanding. Additionally, you have very reliable sources. I do think it would improve the overall quality of the article to find citations that reflect more modern information regarding the evaluation of machiavellianism in children and to find ones that are easy reference for future readers. The Christie, R. & Florence, G., 2013 and Chabrol et al., 2009 cites are the ones I am specifically suggesting are updated. Additionally, evaluation of the Christie, R. & Florence G., 2013 citation lead me to discover that this cite is difficult to refer back to. So, I would suggest finding resources that are easier to reference when continuing your research. To further develop the existing article, one last thing I can suggest is to potentially add a "prevalence" section to discuss the differences in this trait within the gender and race realms. I think this would be an interesting piece of information for people to know and understand. Overall, you seem to me to be on the right track to helping improve the quality of the Machiavellianism article. The information you have provided in the age correlation section definitely seems to be a start to improving the understanding of this specific personality trait.