User:Dkilleen/Piatti/Maddiedufault 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?

Dkilleen

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Dkilleen/Piatti

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Piatti

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The lead gives a brief introduction of the restaurant including its locations, headquarters location, and how long it has been around.
Darby has updated the lead with virtually all of the information in it and has improved its quality substantially.
The lead does not include a brief description that clearly states of the article's major sections, this would potentially help with the flow of the article.

Content

The content added is extremely relevant to the topic. I also think that its order in the article creates a nice flow of information.
There could potentially be a section that describes how Piatti has evolved since its start, but nothing is missing that is obvious or that seems absolutely necessary.
Yes, the content in the sections are up to date.
Within the menu section, it would be helpful and interesting for the reader to go over any dishes they are known for in particular. Additionally, it could be included of where they source their ingredients from and any other information like if they make pasta in house.

Tone and Balance

The general vibe of the article is neutral. There are some words like "extensive" that do give off a bias sounding tone that could be changed to ensure the article is neutral.
There are no heavily biased claims.

Sources and References

Yes, all of the information is factual and sourced.
I think it would be helpful to get information that is not from Piatti itself so we know that it is not biased. Other information could be from local journals or other non biased sources.
All of the links work and are cited properly.

Organization

Yes, the content added is very clear and easy to read.
It might be helpful to create multiple smaller paragraphs by breaking up the information already included so the organization is very clear.