User:Dkilleen/Piatti/St3ffsK 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

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

This article initially has nothing written at all and is writing about Piatti the restaurant from scratch. The Lead includes an introductory sentence that is concise and clear. Ther are also additional major sections that was added and I thought to be beneficial for the overall purpose of the article! I think the introductory could include a sentence or two regarding the founding and specifically what food they are most known for. Overall, the lead is concise and clear.

Content

Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic. The content is up-to-date. I like the three main sections you added, it is very clear and straight-forward. The article does include topics about underrepresented topics when it explains about creating an inclusive space.

Tone and Balance

Overall, the content is neutral. However, I think there is a sentence that seems to persuade the reader to one position. In the Menu subtopic, the sentence “... which are perfect for all ages and palate types.” could have a more neutral tone. “Piatti features a broad menu and wine list that cater to various ages and tastes.”

Sources and References

The new content is backed up by reliable secondary source of information and are current sources. Also, I like how you provided hyperlinks for the current locations Piatti is based in. It would be great to include citations after sentences where it was referenced. I think adding more references from a diverse spectrum of authors could also hugely enhance this article. Examples like news coverage articles from specifically Piatti La Jolla, since it’s the origin, could bring more important details to the article.

Organization

The added content is well-written and easy to read. I think there are some sentences that have grammatical improvements and enhanced sentence structures that could flow better. The first sentence might flow better if it was structured like this, "Piatti is a small restaurant chain located along the West Coast and in Texas, renowned for its authentic Italian cuisine and wines.” Also, it was mentioned under the Location section that the first Piatti was established in 1990, however, in the History section, it was said that Piatti was established in 1987. I think wording it differently could add more emphasis and clarity that it was first opened in 1987 and by 1990, seven more restaurants had been established.

Images and Media

There aren’t new added images. It might be nice to see more pictures, preferably the furniture or architecture that correlates with the European-theme.

Overall impressions

I overall enjoyed reading your content to this article! I was wondering if you wanted to add the word “Restaurant” for the title, since there are three different references in the initial Piatti page. “Piatti Restaurant” could seem like a clear title. There were many strengths in this article as it was written from scratch! You did a good job making clear sentences and what Piatti has to offer including many descriptive words! It could be improved by adding the citations after referencing the website.